U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality in the White River Basin, Indiana
Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4260
White River Basin
National Water-Quality Assessment Study Unit
National Water-Quality Assessment Program science foruses a changing world U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality in the White River Basin, Indiana
By Douglas J. Schnoebelen, Joseph M. Fenelon, Nancy I Baker, Jeffrey D. Martin, E. Randall Bayless, David V. Jacques, and Charles G. Crawford
National Water-Quality Assessment Program Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4260
Indianapolis, Indiana 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director
The use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For additional information, write to: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 5957 Lakeside Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46278-1996
Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0286
Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You can connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resource Locator (URL) at:
The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. that will guide the use and protection of the Nation's The goals of the NAWQA Program are being water resources. That challenge is being addressed by achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations Federal, State, interstate, and local water-resource of 59 of the Nation's most important river basins and agencies and by many academic institutions. These aquifer systems, which are referred to as Study Units. organizations are collecting water-quality data for a These Study Units are distributed throughout the host of purposes that include: compliance with permits Nation and cover a diversity of hydrogeologic set and water-supply standards; development of remedia tings. More than two-thirds of the Nation's freshwater tion plans for specific contamination problems; opera use occurs within the 59 Study Units and more than tional decisions on industrial, wastewater, or water- two-thirds of the people served by public water-supply supply facilities; and research on factors that affect systems live within their boundaries. water quality. An additional need for water-quality National synthesis of data analysis, based on information is to provide a basis on which regional- aggregation of comparable information obtained from and national-level policy decisions can be based. Wise the Study Units, is a major component of the program. decisions must be based on sound information. As a This effort focuses on selected water-quality topics society we need to know whether certain types of using nationally consistent information. Comparative water-quality problems are isolated or ubiquitous, studies will explain differences and similarities in whether there are significant differences in conditions observed water-quality conditions among study areas among regions, whether the conditions are changing and will identify changes and trends and their causes. over time, and why these conditions change from The first topics addressed by the national synthesis are place to place and over time. The information can be pesticides, nutrients, volatile organic compounds, and used to help determine the efficacy of existing water- aquatic biology. Discussions on these and other water- quality policies and to help analysts determine the quality topics will be published in periodic summaries need for and likely consequences of new policies. of the quality of the Nation's ground and surface water To address these needs, the U.S. Congress appropri as the information becomes available. ated funds in 1986 for the USGS to begin a pilot pro This report is an element of the comprehensive gram in seven project areas to develop and refine the body of information developed as part of the NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Pro Program. The program depends heavily on the advice, gram. In 1991, the USGS began full implementation of cooperation, and information from many Federal, the program. The NAWQA Program builds upon an State, interstate, Tribal, and local agencies and the existing base of water-quality studies of the USGS, as public. The assistance and suggestions of all are well as those of other Federal, State, and local agencies. greatly appreciated. The objectives of the NAWQA Program are to: Describe current water-quality conditions for a large part of the Nation's freshwater streams, rivers, and aquifers.
Robert M. Hirsch Chief Hydrologist Contents
Abstract ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Purpose and Scope ...... 2 Acknowledgments ...... 2 Environmental Setting of the White River Basin: Natural Factors ...... 3 Climate ...... 3 Precipitation and Temperature ...... 3 Precipitation Quality ...... 3 Geology ...... 8 Physiography ...... 8 Soils ...... 14 Hydrology ...... 14 Surface Water ...... 14 Characteristics of Streamflow ...... 16 Floods and Droughts ...... 22 Surface-Water Quality ...... 22 Ground Water ...... 33 Glaciofluvial Aquifers ...... 33 Till Aquifers ...... 34 Silurian and Devonian Carbonate Aquifers ...... 34 Mississippian Carbonate Aquifer ...... 35 Minor Aquifers ...... 35 Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interaction ...... 36 Environmental Setting of the White River Basin: Human Influences ...... 36 Land Use ...... 37 Agriculture ...... 37 Forest ...... 37 Urban and Industry...... 37 Recreation and Reservoirs ...... 40 Mines and Quarries ...... 44 Waste-Disposal Practices ...... 44 Agricultural Practices ...... 48 WaterUse ...... 52
iv Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Contents Continued
Hydrogeomorphic Regions of the White River Basin ...... 54 Till Plain ...... 54 Glacial Lowland...... 57 Bedrock Uplands ...... 57 Karst Plain ...... 58 Bedrock Lowland and Plain ...... 58 Fluvial Deposits ...... 59 Summary ...... 60 References Cited ...... 62
Illustrations 1. Map showing location of the White River Basin in Indiana ...... 4 2. Graph showing mean monthly temperature at four selected stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90 ...... 5 3. Map showing mean annual precipitation in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961 90 ...... 6 4. Graphs showing mean monthly precipitation at four selected stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90...... 7 5 10. Maps showing: 5. Generalized bedrock geology in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 9 6. Structural geology in Indiana and the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 11 7. Surficial geology in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 12 8. Physiographic units in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 13 9. Major soil regions in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 15 10. Location of U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 17 11 12. Graphs showing: 11. Flow-duration curves of daily mean streamflow for three small streams in different physiographic units of the White River Basin, Indiana, 1971 90 water years ...... 21 12. Mean monthly streamflow at seven selected streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961 90 water years ...... 23 13-14. Maps showing: 13. Mean annual runoff in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90 water years ...... 24 14. Location of Indiana Department of Environmental Management surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana ...... 26 15 16. Graphs showing: 15. Distribution of hardness concentrations at surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana, 1981-90 water years ...... 27 16. Distribution of alkalinity concentrations at surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana, 1981-90 water years ...... 28
Contents v Contents Continued
Illustrations Continued 17. Map showing location of small-stream, base-flow water-quality-sampling sites in the White River Basin, Indiana, March 1992 ...... 29 18-19. Graphs showing: 18. Major cation concentrations measured during base-flow conditions in small streams of the White River Basin, Indiana, March 1992 ...... 31 19. Major anion concentrations measured during base-flow conditions in small streams of the White River Basin, Indiana, March 1992 ...... 32 20-22. Maps showing: 20. Land use in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 38 21. Percent of land planted in corn and soybeans and cattle and swine production in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1992 ...... 39 22. Population density in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1990 ...... 41 23. Graph showing population growth in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1820-1990 ...... 40 24-28. Maps showing: 24. Change in population density in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1940-90 ...... 42 25. Managed Federal and State lands and major reservoirs in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 43 26. Location of municipal wastewater-treatment plants that discharged more than one million gallons of effluent per day in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1991 ...... 47 27. Location of industrial wastewater-treatment plants and power-plant cooling-water discharge points that discharged more than one million gallons of effluent per day in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1991 ...... 49 28. Hydrogeomorphic regions used to evaluate the effects of natural factors on water quality in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 55
Tables 1. Geologic chart showing geologic ages, groups, selected formations, and lithologies for aquifers and confining units in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 10 2. Summary of daily mean streamflow characteristics at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1971-90 water years ...... 18 3. Description of selected Indiana Department of Environmental Management surface-water-quality- monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana ...... 30 4. Reservoirs in the White River Basin, Indiana, with a normal capacity of at least 5,000 acre-feet, 1988 .. 45 5. Estimated use of agricultural pesticides in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 51 6. Water use in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1995 ...... 53 7. Characteristics of hydrogeomorphic regions in the White River Basin, Indiana ...... 56
vi Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, Water-Quality Units, and Abbreviations
Multiply By To obtain
inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year foot (ft) 0.3048 meter foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day foot squared per day1 (ft2/d) 0.0929 meter squared per day foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second cubic foot per second per square mile (ft3/s/mi2) 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square kilometer cubic foot per day per foot (ft3/d/ft) 0.09290 cubic meter per day per meter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer mile per hour (mph) 1.609 kilometer per hour square mile (mi") 2.590 square kilometer people per square mile (people/mi2) 0.3861 people per square kilometer acre 0.4047 hectare acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter pound per acre (Ib/acre) 1.121 kilogram per hectare ton per acre per year (ton/acre/yr) 2.242 megagram per hectare per year bushel (bu) 0.03524 cubic meter gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second
lrThis unit is used to express transmissivity, the capacity of an aquifer to transmit water. Conceptually, transmissivity is cubic feet (of water) per day per square foot (of aquifer area) per foot (of aquifer thickness). In this report, the unit is reduced to its simplest form.
Air temperature is given in degrees Fahrenheit (°F), which can be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C = (°F-32)71.8
Vertical datum: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929) a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
Water year: In U.S. Geological Survey reports, water year is the 12-month period, October 1 through September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the year ending September 30, 1990, is called the "1990 water year."
Water-quality units used in this report: Chemical concentrations, atmospheric chemical loads, and water temperature are given in metric units. Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical value is the same as for concentrations in parts per million. Chemical loads are given in milligrams per square meter (mg/nr), a unit that expresses the weight (milligrams) of a chemical constituent per unit area (square meter).
Contents vii Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, Water-Quality Units, and Abbreviations Continued
The following abbreviations are used in this report:
Abbreviation Description CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System GIRAS Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWS National Weather Service RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act STATSGO State Soil Geographic Data Base pH Negative log (base-10) of the hydrogen ion activity, in moles per liter 7Qio The average streamflow for 7 consecutive days below which streamflow recedes on average once every 10 years
viii Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality in the White River Basin, Indiana
By Douglas J. Schnoebelen, Joseph M. Fenelon, Nancy I Baker, Jeffrey D. Martin, E. Randall Bayless, David V.Jacques, and Charles G. Crawford
Abstract soybeans are the major crops. Other significant land uses are forest (22 percent) and urban and The White River Basin drains 11,349 residential (7 percent). The population of the square miles of central and southern Indiana basin was 2.1 million in 1990. Water use in and is one of 59 Study Units selected for the White River Basin totaled 1,284 million water-quality assessment as part of the gallons per day in 1995, of which 84.5 percent U.S. Geological Survey's National Water- was surface water and 15.5 percent was ground Quality Assessment Program. Defining the water. Despite the predominant use of surface environmental setting of the basin and identi water, ground water was the primary source of fying the natural factors and human influences drinking water for approximately 56 percent that affect water quality are important parts of the population. of the assessment. The general water chemistry in the White Interrelated natural factors help deter River Basin is determined by natural factors mine the quality of surface and ground water such as soils and geologic materials that water in a river basin. The White River Basin has contacts as it moves through the hydrologic a humid continental climate, characterized system. In the southern part of the basin, by well-defined winter and summer seasons. bedrock upland areas are dominated by Geologic features in the basin include glaci non-carbonate bedrock, thin soils, and high ated and nonglaciated areas; a region of karst runoff-rainfall ratios. These areas have small geomorphology that is characterized by caves chemical concentrations in streamwater. Con and sinkholes; and a thick, sedimentary bed versely, in the northern part of the basin where rock sequence underlying the entire basin. glacial deposits are thick and in the southwest Unconsolidated glacial deposits of clay, silt, ern part of the basin where loess deposits are sand and gravel cover more than 60 percent thick, water has longer periods of time to react of the basin. Soils developed in unconsolidated with soils and aquifers and to acquire substan glacial deposits are typically fertile, naturally tial quantities of dissolved constituents. As or artificially well drained, and farmed. Soils a result, streams in the till plain and glacial in the unglaciated south-central part of the lowland have higher concentrations of most basin are thin, have low fertility, and are best constituents than streams in the unglaciated suited for forest or pasture. parts of the basin. Water quality is significantly modified by human influences. Water quality Agriculture is the principal land use in the is affected locally by point sources of contami White River Basin. Approximately 70 percent nation that include combined-sewer overflows, of the basin is used for agriculture, and about power-generation-plant cooling stations, and 50 percent of the basin is cropland. Corn and wastewater-treatment-plant effluents that are
Abstract 1 generally associated with densely populated The NAWQA Program targets major hydro- areas. Water quality is additionally affected logic systems of the United States. Fifty-nine by non-point sources of contamination related hydrologic systems, referred to as Study Units, to agriculture, urban runoff, and mining. were selected for investigation. These systems include parts of most river basins and aquifer Six hydrogeomorphic regions of the systems used for public-supply water (Leahy White River Basin are delineated on the basis and others, 1990). Study Units encompass areas of distinct and relatively homogeneous natural from about 1,000 to more than 70,000 mi" and characteristics. These six regions are used in represent 60 to 70 percent of the Nation's water the White River Basin study as a framework use. Assessment activities for each Study Unit con for examining the effects of natural factors on sist of 2 years of planning and analysis of existing water quality in the basin. Bedrock is exposed data, 3 years of intensive data collection, followed or near the surface in three hydrogeomorphic by 6 years of less intensive monitoring (Leahy and regions the bedrock uplands, bedrock low others, 1990). The NAWQA Program is structured land and plain, and karst plain; streams and such that about one-third of the Study Units are shallow aquifers in these regions are suscepti under intensive investigation at any given time. ble to contamination, especially in the karst The White River Basin study was one of 20 Study plain, and show rapid response to rainfall. Units begun in 1991. A brief summary outlining The other three hydrogeomorphic regions the White River Basin study is given in Jacques the fluvial deposits, till plain, and glacial and Crawford( 1991). lowland are in the glaciated part of the basin. Where thick fine-grained unconsolidated sedi ments are present, primarily in the till plain, Purpose and Scope ground-water supplies are protected from contamination, and extreme high and low This report identifies some of the natural streamflows are moderated. factors and human influences that affect surface- water and ground-water quality in the White River Basin. The report will be used as a basis Introduction for sampling designs implemented during intensive sampling periods of the White River Basin study and will provide a context for analysis of data The need for a nationally consistent descrip collected during these periods. tion of the status and trends in the quality of the Nation's ground- and surface-water resources The report is limited to a brief examination prompted the U.S. Geological Survey to imple of the major environmental factors that affect ment the National Water-Quality Assessment water quality in the basin and is based primarily (NAWQA) Program (Hirsch and others, 1988). on information described in previous studies. In addition to describing status and trends, another The effects on water quality in the White River goal of the NAWQA Program is improving the Basin from natural factors (climate, geology, scientific understanding of the natural factors and physiography, soils, and hydrology) and human human influences that affect water quality. influences (land use, population, waste-disposal practices, agricultural practices, and water use) are described. Background Acknowledgments In 1986, NAWQA Program pilot studies were started by the U.S. Geological Survey to develop, The authors thank the Indiana Agricultural test, and refine methods useful for the full-scale Statistics Service for providing information on NAWQA Program that would begin in 1991. Indiana agriculture. The Indiana Department of
2 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Environmental Management (IDEM) provided Ocean. Polar continental air masses dominate information on municipal and industrial return weather patterns in late fall, winter, and early flows and much of the surface-water-quality spring (Glatfelter and Newman, 1991). data used in this report. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources provided water-use and Precipitation and Temperature water-withdrawal information. Henry Gray and John Rupp, Indiana Geological Survey, provided Precipitation and temperature data are maps and advice for delineating the hydrogeo- available from a network of 48 National Weather morphic boundaries. Donald Franzmeier, Purdue Service (NWS) stations distributed throughout the University, provided descriptions of Indiana soils. basin. All temperature and climate data presented William Hosteter, Natural Resources Conservation in this report are based on the period of record Service, provided assistance in interpreting 1961 through 1990. information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) data base for Indiana. Mean annual temperature in the White River Basin ranges from about 51 °F in the north to about 55°F in the south. Mean monthly temperatures at Columbus, in the central part of the basin, range Environmental Setting of the from about 27°F in January to about 75°F in July. White River Basin: Natural Factors Figure 2 shows the mean monthly temperature for four NWS stations in the basin. Winds in the basin generally trend east to northeast, with an average The White River Basin encompasses velocity of 11 mph (Peters and Bonelli, 1982). 11,349 mi2 of central and southern Indiana and includes all or parts of 43 counties (fig. 1). Inter Mean annual precipitation in the study area related natural factors help determine the water ranges from 38 inches in the northern part of the quality in the basin. For example, the geology in basin to 44 inches in the south-central part (fig. 3). the basin is variable some areas have 400 ft of Precipitation in the cooler months is generally of glacial till covering the bedrock surface while, in long duration and mild intensity, whereas precipi non-glaciated areas, bedrock can be exposed at tation in late spring and summer tends to be of the land surface. The climate and geology partially shorter duration and higher intensity. Figure 4 control the physiography and soils that develop in shows mean monthly precipitation for four NWS the basin. These four factors, in turn, influence the stations in the basin. Estimated evapotranspiration characteristics of stream discharge and the types in the basin is 26 in/yr (Clark, 1980). of aquifers in the basin. Together, these natural factors influence the surface- and ground-water Precipitation Quality quality. Precipitation can be contaminated by a vari ety of compounds. During the latter part of the Climate 20th century, "acid rain" (precipitation with a pH of 4.0 or less) in the northern United States and The White River Basin has a humid Canada has been the subject of most precipitation- continental climate. The climate is characterized contamination studies. In a 3-month study of by well-defined winter and summer seasons atmospheric deposition across the north-central accompanied by large annual temperature ranges and northeastern United States, Peters and Bonelli (Shampine, 1977). Tropical maritime air masses (1982) showed that the average pH for precipita dominate Indiana's climate during late spring, tion in the White River Basin was 4.2 to 4.4, summer, and early fall; sources of moisture are except for southwestern Indiana where the pH the Gulf of Mexico and the subtropical Atlantic was typically greater than 4.8. Daily calcium
Environmental Setting of the White River Basin: Natural Factors 3 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' -
40°
39°
38°30'
0 10 20 30 40 MILES I \ I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86°
EXPLANATION White River Basin boundary
Figure 1. Location of the White River Basin in Indiana.
4 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Winchester^;.' ( i Indianapolis / Columbus \ ( Shoals / " '
80
WINCHESTER + INDIANAPOLIS o. 70 COLUMBUS SHOALS ct: 60 ct: 50 ct: 30 20 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Figure 2. Mean monthly temperature at four selected stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90. (Data from National Weather Service, 1997.) Climate 5 87°30' 87° 30' 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' Vigo 39° 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES T I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION 44- Line of equal mean annual precipitation, in inches White River Basin boundary Figure 3. Mean annual precipitation in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90. (Data from Wendlund and others, 1992.) 6 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana INDIANAPOLIS WINCHESTER Gibson Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION i r i i i White River Basin boundary 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Precipitation station Figure 4. Mean monthly precipitation at four selected stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90. (Data from National Weather Service, 1997. loads in atmospheric deposition in southwestern White River Basin (fig. 6). The White River Basin r\ Indiana are generally greater than 2.0 mg/m , is primarily influenced by the Illinois structural *y compared to 1.0 to 2.0 mg/m for the remainder basin. Sedimentary strata dip westward and south- of the basin. Daily loads are generally less than westward from the axis of the Cincinnati Arch *j 0.5 mg/m for sodium, chloride, and fluoride. into the Illinois structural basin with a slope of 10 to 30 ft/mi (Gutschick, 1966). Geologic units Atmospheric deposition also may be a sig thicken to the west and southwest toward the nificant pathway for the dispersal of pesticides and center of the Illinois structural basin. nutrients (Grennfelt and Jultberg, 1986; Grover, Two major faults interrupt bedrock stratig 1988; Taylor and Glotfelty, 1988; Aber and others, raphy in the White River Basin (fig. 6). The 1989; Johnson and others, 1991; Majewski and Mt. Carmel fault system can be traced at land Capel, 1995). Herbicides were detected in more surface for about 55 mi, and rock units may be than 50 percent of the atmospheric deposition displaced vertically up to 200 ft (Tanner, 1986). samples in the upper Midwest taken during May The Fortville fault trace is approximately 45 mi to June 1990 (Goolsby and others, 1991). Average long, and the vertical displacement of bedrock daily loads of ammonium (as nitrogen) and nitrate is estimated to be no more than 50 to 100 ft (as nitrogen) in southwestern and south-central *j (Dawson, 1971). The Fortville and Mt. Carmel Indiana range from 0.6 to 1.0 mg/m and 0.4 to fault systems are inactive. 2.0 mg/m2, respectively (Peters and Bonelli, In southern and central Indiana, the sedi 1982). mentary strata are exposed or near the surface, providing many benefits to the local inhabitants. Geology For example, where Mississippian limestones are near or exposed at the land surface, karst features The varied geology of the White River Basin such as caves, sinkholes, and disappearing streams affects topography, runoff, land use, ground-water are popular attractions with tourists and spelunk- storage, and surface- and ground-water quality. ers. In addition to the aesthetic appeal, the karst Geologic features in the White River Basin include plain of south-central Indiana is a refuge for unique glaciated and nonglaciated areas; a region of karst flora and fauna like the blind crayfish. Sedimentary geomorphology that is characterized by caves rocks also are mined for their economic value (see and sinkholes; and a thick, sedimentary bedrock "Mines and Quarries" section). sequence underlying the entire basin. Glaciation In the northern part of the basin, unconsoli during the Quaternary age left extensive deposits dated glacial deposits overlie the bedrock. Glaciers of unconsolidated material in the basin. Bedrock covered parts of present-day Indiana at least three includes Paleozoic-age carbonates (limestone and times during the Pleistocene Epoch (Wayne, 1966). dolomite), sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coals Wisconsin- and pre-Wisconsin- (Kansan and Illi- (Shaver and others, 1986; Gray and others, 1987; noian) age glaciers covered more than 60 percent Gray, 1989; and Rupp, 1991). A generalized bed of the basin and left deposits of till containing rock geology map of the White River Basin is clay, silt, sand and gravel (fig. 7). Unconsolidated shown in figure 5. A chart showing geologic ages, deposits may be 400 ft thick in the northern part of the basin but, in the southern part, glacial deposits groups, selected formations, and lithologies for are limited to thin veneers of windblown silt. aquifers and confining units is given in table 1. The structural geology of Indiana is influ Physiography enced by the Cincinnati and Kankakee Arches. These two regional features separate the Michigan The White River Basin contains seven physi structural basin from the Illinois structural basin ographic units originally defined by Malott (1922) and are positioned to the north and east of the (fig. 8). Differences in land-surface features among 8 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - - ; Hamilton ...... vy - , /*, I, x/^, , !, Matfoo*-W JVr ^laware_ ,'| Randolphf .j^-f I 40° .>£ V I Creek X *s\s' w I Boone -5,- i J____/_. - -p. Fayette 30' t. --W' 0 10 20 30 40 MILES Gibson I I li_____| I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000.1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30'. central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Bedrock group or formation and lithology i I McLeansboro, Carbondale, and Racoon Creek Groups-shale; sandstone; thin beds of limestone, clay, and coal i i Buffalo Wallow, Stephensport, and West Baden Groups-shale; sandstone; limestone f I Blue River and Sanders Groups-limestone Borden Group plus Rockford Limestone-siltstone and shale I] New Albany Shale-black shale I Muscatatuck Group-limestone and dolomite I Silurian rocks-limestone and dolomite i Maquoketa Group-shale and limestone White River Basin boundary Figure 5. Generalized bedrock geology in the White River Basin, Indiana. (Modified from Gray and others, 1987.) Physiography 9 Table 1. Geologic chart showing geologic ages, groups, selected formations, and lithologies for aquifers and confining units in the White River Basin, Indiana [Geologic names are from Shaver and others, 1986.] Erathem System Series or Group Selected Formations Lithology Hydrogeologic unit Holocene Cenozoic Alluvial sand, silt, and clay; Quaternary dune sand; loess; Glaciofluvial aquifers; g Wisconsin Trafalgar Formation o outwash sand and gravel; Till aquifers; lake clay; Till and clay confining units 53 Pre- Wisconsin Jessup Formation clay-loam till £ Pennsyl Pennsylvanian sandstone aquifers; McLeansboro Group vanian Shale, siltstone, sandstone, Minor limestone, shale, and coal Carbondale Group Mansfield Formation limestone, and coal aquifers; Raccoon Creek Group Shale and siltstone confining units Buffalo Wallow Group Mississippian sandstone and thin Shale, siltstone, sandstone, Stephensport Group (<30 ft) limestone aquifers; and limestone West Baden Group Shale and siltstone confining units Paoli Limestone Mississippian Blue River Group Ste. Genevieve Limestone Limestone Mississippian carbonate aquifer Sanders Group St. Louis Limestone Salem Limestone Edwardsville Formation Siltstone and shale; minor Borden Group Spickert Knob Formation Confining unit limestone and sandstone New Providence Shale Paleozoic New Albany Shale Shale Confining unit 6 c > 03 QO-J3c Muscatatuck Group Limestone and dolomite Wabash Formation Silurian Pleasant Mill Formation Silurian and Devonian carbonate Salina Group or Louisville Limestone aquifer Limestone and dolomite Bainbridge Group Salamonie Dolomite Cataract Formation Brassfield Limestone Maquoketa Group Shale and limestone Confining unit Ordovician Trenton Limestone Limestone Not used for water in basin Black River Group Limestone, dolomite, and Not used for water in basin Ancell Group sandstone Knox Supergroup Dolomite Not used for water in basin s| &£ Potsdam Supergroup Mt. Simon Sandstone Sandstone Not used for water in basin Precambrian Basement complex includes granite, basalt, and arkose 10 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 870 86° 85° I - St. Joseph ; Elkhart Lagrange | MICHIGAN BASIN Starke Marshall : Warren ,_. : Tippecanoe; , - ' r - Hfndrlcks J Putnam ILLINOIS BASIN r Morgan 1 f Clay (!..._ __. 1 ' Owen Mohfoe Gibson ' I Dubois i Wabash Valley ^_ j_ Crawford ' Royd/y EXPLANATION ___ Fault System -- r White River Basin ~~2 I I lOI I IOUI I I Basin margin as defined by Muscatatuck Group outcrop limit /^ ' /^^/ n > V^^^* Anticline Fault Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:200,000, 1972 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° 0 20 40 60 80 Miles 0 20 40 60 80 Kilometers Figure 6. Structural geology in Indiana and the White River Basin, Indiana. (Modified from Rupp, 1991.) Physiography 11 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' Vigo 1 r*V - - « 1^ {V :A * Deeatur ' 39° 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES Gibson 1 T 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983 Alters Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Unconsolidated surficial deposits i I Sand, silt, and some gravel-Holocene alluvium and Pleistocene glacial outwash Clay, silt, and sand-Wisconsin-age lake deposits Silt deposits-Wisconsin-age loess Loam to sandy loam deposits-Wisconsin-age till n,i,r/:::m Loam to sandy loam deposits-Pre-Wisconsin-age till i I Bedrock-Paleozoic sandstone, shale, and limestone White River Basin boundary Figure 7. Surficial geology in the White River Basin, Indiana. (Modified from Seller, 1993 and Gray, 1989. 12 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° I I I T I 40°30' - 40° 30' MV^ - «r TWormanf |.' ' /"Deca^ v*! /* vUpland i | coium^l -} ( V "X"t r i Bloomington ' O^*^ ! % O MljISCatatUCkS \ -:i»U ___.JL .1 o I -r' I * .'.' .. > \ r /' >-^J Brown I Banholome\v : Greene V"^ fX-»| -i| j &r\SA j V suiiivan ^ i Crawfqrd /:WW(r_.J^ nnmis " ifRipley^v 39° ^Uplanjl.^^.^^V "" ' T Jackson e* l<0 ^itchellf !I ^Scottsburg^ IY" ^"*!S' 'Ratn ! Lowland ^^V11 I \Vabash v Uuscatatuct ' '^o* f /\ .Lowland j / /^[ J: Wa,h«gton -^/' : ( V Daviess j KM) . " ^ .^f , ^. - ^^ TT.-> ^ Knox \J j |^a^,. V *r y V./^'-J^Ctak J* r^HCVrNA/~>C\ T^Vr^ w jj-\- 't >Tj-fe ^ min . N^J 0ranSe '_/ 38°30' ^Sv-.. ^r-p1-^1^..^.-^' Pike ^iPetersburcjf-^ Xtr -i ,-Uy^O^ \ ^r^.. 0 10 20 30 40 MILES Gibson ^ |____i i____|____i I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Physiographic units i HP Tipton Till Plain Wabash Lowland H Crawford Upland Mitchell Plain Norman Upland Scottsburg Lowland Muscatatuck Regional Slope White River Basin boundary Figure 8. Physiographic units in the White River Basin, Indiana. (Modified from Schneider, 1966). Physiography 13 these units are caused by bedrock geology and base content, and high fertility (Ulrich, 1966). Soils the extent of glaciation. The Tipton Till Plain, along the floodplains are found in and along stream defined by glacial features, is a flat to rolling and river valleys throughout the basin and are glacial till plain that covers the northern half of the typically well drained, fertile, and have high base basin. The Wabash Lowland is in the southwestern content (Ulrich, 1966). Soils developed from bed part of the basin and is an area of broad, flat rock are located in the unglaciated area in the valleys and gently rolling plains. The remaining south-central part of the basin. The soils are typi five physiographic units are controlled principally cally well drained, thin, acidic, and have low by bedrock. The Crawford Upland and the Norman organic matter and poor fertility (Ulrich, 1966). Upland are westward-sloping, unglaciated upland Most are best suited for forest or pasture. Soils areas with narrow ridge tops and steep slopes. The developed from lake deposits are poorly drained Mitchell Plain lies between the two upland units and are not areally extensive in the White River and is a karst plain with numerous sinkholes and Basin. solution features. The Scottsburg Lowland is east of the Norman Upland and is an area of low relief Hydrology and extremely broad, flat valleys. The Muscatatuck Regional Slope, in the southeastern part of the The hydrology of the White River Basin is basin, is a westward-sloping plain characterized described by characterizing surface-water flow by moderate relief and by bedrock outcrops in and quality, ground-water flow and quality, and the stream channels. surface-water and ground-water interactions. Soils Surface Water The White River drains 11,349 mi2 of central Thirteen soil regions characterize the soils and southern Indiana and joins the Wabash River in the White River Basin (fig. 9). The soil regions in southwestern Indiana (Hoggatt, 1975). Most are classified by parent material, natural vegeta of the basin is divided into two nearly equal sub- tion, and topography (Franzmeier and others, basins the East Fork White River and the White 1989). The basin is covered by soil regions of River (locally called the "west fork" of the White four primary groups with similar geologic proper River) upstream from its confluence with the east ties: (1) soils developed from loess or glacial tills fork. East Fork White River drains 5,746 mi2 (composed primarily of the soil regions "thin and joins the White River at river mile 49.5 near loess over loamy glacial till" and "moderately Petersburg (fig. 1). White River, upstream from thick loess over weathered loamy glacial till"); its confluence with East Fork White River, drains (2) soils developed along floodplains (composed 5,372 mi2. Only 2 percent (231 mi2) of the primarily of the soil regions "alluvial deposits" drainage area of the White River Basin is down and "outwash deposits"); (3) soils developed from stream from the confluence of the east and west bedrock (composed of the soil regions "discon forks. tinuous loess over weathered limestone" and The major tributaries (drainage areas greater "discontinuous loess over weathered limestone than 500 mi2) to the East Fork White River are the /^ and shale"); and (4) soils developed from lake Driftwood River (1,165 mi ), the Flatrock River deposits. Soils developed from loess or glacial (542 mi2), the Muscatatuck River (1,140 mi2), tills are found in Wisconsin-age tills in the northern and Salt Creek (636 mi2) (fig. 1). The Driftwood part of the basin and pre-Wisconsin-age tills in the River may be the shortest river in Indiana. Formed western and eastern parts of the basin. These soils by the confluence of the Big Blue River and Sugar are developed in calcareous parent material and Creek, the Driftwood River flows 15 mi to its commonly have poor natural drainage, high confluence with the Flatrock River, where the 14 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - Muncie ! Hamilton Andersen* I o ; Delaware j R»«W|*f J j -Madison I , - ' j - *~* "^ 40° /! i ,_.T Henry /^ HentiricksJ'. Hancock , _ r O !.-,.- --r-; Fayette I Indianapofis |, , Marion ji_j»_-< - ^ j r 30' 39° 38°30' Gibson i i i r 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Suivey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Soil regions Thin loess over loamy glacial till Moderately thick loess over loamy glacial till Soils developed from loess Moderately thick loess over loamy glacial till with prairie vegetation or glacial tills Moderately thick loess over weathered loamy glacial till Thick loess deposits : Clayey glacial till I] Alluvial deposits Soils developed along floodplains 3 Outwash deposits Eolian sand deposits H Discontinuous loess over weathered limestone and shale Soils developed from bedrock H Discontinuous loess over weathered limestone Soils developed from lake Silty and clayey lake deposits deposits Moderately thick loess over weathered lake deposits White River Basin boundary Figure 9. Major soil regions in the White River Basin, Indiana. (Modified from Franzmeier and others, 1989.) Hydrology 15 East Fork White River is formed. The Big Blue to reach the stream. Streamflow is used to describe River is considered the headwaters of the East the volume flow rate of water measured at a Fork White River (Stewart and Nell, 1991). The >} streamflow-gaging station and is expressed in Eel River (1,208 mi ) is the only major tributary cubic feet per second (ft3/s). Because the magni to the White River, excluding the East Fork tude of streamflow is a function of the size of the White River (Hoggatt, 1975). The reaches of drainage basin, streamflow also may be expressed o >} the White River and the East Fork White River in cubic feet per second per square mile (ft /s/rni ) upstream from their confluence are referred to as to allow comparison of streamflow among stations the "west fork" and "east fork" of the White River with different-sized drainage basins. Adjustment in this report when comparing streamflow or water of streamflow for basin size, however, often results quality of the two rivers. in peak flows that are inversely correlated to basin size (Gregory and Walling, 1973). To minimize Characteristics of Streamflow this correlation, characteristics of streamflow were Streamflow information is collected by the compared among basins of approximately similar U.S. Geological Survey at streamflow-gaging sizes. stations throughout the basin (fig. 10). The Daily mean streamflow at selected information is used by scientists, planners, and streamflow-gaging stations in the White River regulators for a variety of purposes including fore Basin was summarized for the 1971 through 1990 casting floods; delineating floodplains; operating water years (table 2) to describe the characteristics and designing reservoirs; setting permit require of streamflow in the basin. (This 20-year period ments for the discharge of wastewater; designing was selected rather than 1961-90 to increase the bridges and culverts; establishing and monitoring minimum streamflows; performing scientific number of stations available for analysis. Many studies of hydrology; and allocating water for of the streamflow-gaging stations in the basin were multiple, competing users. Statistical summaries not installed until the late 1960's.) Characteristics of streamflow information for Indiana have of streamflow generally are described by a variety been compiled by Arvin (1989), and low-flow of statistical computations of the daily mean characteristics of Indiana streams have been streamflow (the average rate of streamflow during compiled by Fowler and Wilson (1996). Methods a particular calendar day). These computations for estimating the magnitude and frequency are of two types in this report: (1) mean stream- of floods in Indiana have been developed by flow for specified periods of time, such as mean Glatfelter (1984), and methods for estimating monthly streamflow or mean annual runoff, and the magnitude and frequency of low flows in (2) frequency analyses of daily mean streamflow Indiana have been developed by Arihood and or some other statistic of streamflow. For example, Glatfelter (1986). the mean monthly streamflow for March is the The flow of water can be described by many average of the 620 daily mean streamflows for technical terms and expressed in different units of March for water years 1971 through 1990. measure (Langbein and Iseri, 1960). The distinc Frequency analysis of streamflow (also called tion among terms often is subtle and can lead to flow-duration analysis) provides information on confusion. In this report, mean annual runoff is the percentage of time a particular value of daily used to describe the water yield of a drainage mean streamflow (or some other statistic of stream- basin and is expressed in inches to allow a direct flow) is equaled or exceeded. For example, the comparison with precipitation. Mean annual 1-percent flow duration for the White River at runoff is not surface runoff. Surface runoff is a Muncie is 2,330 ft3/s (table 2). This means that mechanism of streamflow generation where pre only 1 percent (73) of the 7,309 daily mean stream- cipitation quickly flows over the surface of the flows from water years 1971 through 1990 were land (rather than through the soil or ground water) equal to or greater than 2,330 ft3/s. In this report, 16 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' 3475CJO Randolph J 353500 \A 353000 .*£> 40° V' A 353180 30' 39° 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES J I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION White River Basin boundary 371500 U-S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station and A abbreviated station number. Complete station number includes a "03" prefix. Abbreviated station numbers in bold are in table 2. Figure 10. Location of U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana. Hydrology 17 Table 2. Summary of daily mean streamflow characteristics at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1971-90 water years [Station locations shown in figure 10; 7Q10, the average streamflow for 7 consecutive days below which streamflow recedes on average once every 10 years; ft3/s, cubic feet per second numbers not in brackets; ft3/s/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile numbers in brackets; mi2, square mile; %, percent] Percentage of time that daily mean streamflow was greater than or equal to value shown Drainage PIO (ft3/sandft3/s/mi2) Station name and area (tf/sand identifier (mi2) tf/s/mi2) 95% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 5% 1% White River at Muncie 241 4.7 9.2 17 35 89 221 518 894 2,330 (03347000) [.020] [.040] [.069] [-15] [-37] [-92] [2.1] [3.7] [9.7] Buck Creek near Muncie 35.5 7.5 11 13 18 26 41 69 107 276 (03347500) [-21] [-30] [-37] [-50] [-74] [1.2] [2.0] [3.0] [7.8] Killbuck Creek near 25.5 1.0 1.9 2.8 5.3 12 26 58 99 255 Gaston (03348020) [.040] [.075] [-11] [-21] [-47] [1.0] [2.3] [3.9] [10] Pipe Creek at Frankton 113 4.2 7.4 9.1 17 39 95 257 450 1,060 (03348350) [.038] [.065] [.081] [-15] [-35] [-84] [2.3] [4.0] [9.4] Stony Creek near 50.8 3.1 4.5 5.8 9.8 22 54 116 183 431 Noblesville (03350700) [.061] [.089] [-11] [-19] [-44] [1.1] [2.3] [3.6] [8.5] White River near Nora 1,219 133 172 202 314 619 1,350 2,790 4,420 9,220 (03351000) Ml] [.14] [-17] [-26] [-51] [1.1] [2.3] [3.6] [7-6] Crooked Creek at 17.9 .65 1.4 1.9 3.5 7.6 18 38 68 199 Indianapolis (0335 13 10) [.034] [.078] [-11] [-20] [.42] [-98] [2.1] [3.8] [11] Fall Creek near Fortville 169 16 30 36 55 102 196 362 582 1,350 (03351500) [.095] [-18] [-21] [-32] [-60] [1.2] [2.1] [3.4] [8.0] Bean Creek at 4.4 .67 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.7 4.8 11 18 46 Indianapolis (03353180) [-16] [-25] [-30] [-41] [-61] [1.1] [2.5] [4.1] [11] West Fork White Lick 28.8 .00 .11 .40 2.2 9.9 31 81 146 390 Creek at Danville [.000] [.004] [-014] [.076] [-34] [1.1] [2.8] [5.1] [14] (03353700) White River near 2,444 274 383 469 764 1,490 3,030 5,830 9,470 18,000 Centerton (03354000) [-11] [-16] [-19] [-31] [-61] [1.2] [2.4] [3.9] [7.3] Beanblossom Creek 14.6 .00 .01 .12 .65 4.2 16 36 68 215 at Beanblossom [.000] [.001] [.008] [.045] [.29] [1.1] [2.5] [4.6] [15] (03354500) Big Walnut Creek near 326 8.9 23 36 74 174 394 834 1,430 3,710 Reelsville (03357500) [.027] [-071] [-11] [-23] [-53] [1.2] [2.6] [4.4] [11] Mill Creek near Cataract 245 3.3 8.3 13 34 92 244 648 1,290 3,240 (03358000) [-014] [.034] [.054] [.14] [-38] [1.0] [2.6] [5.3] [13] White River at Newberry 4,688 443 666 861 1,490 3,220 6,760 12,600 18,300 29,500 (03360500) [.095] [-14] [-18] [-32] [-69] [1.4] [2.7] [3.9] [6.3] Big Blue River at 184 27 43 54 73 125 219 421 657 1,530 Carthage (03361000) [-15] [-23] [-29] [-40] [-68] [1.2] [2.3] [3.6] [8.3] Sugar Creek at New 93.9 3.5 6.6 9.2 19 47 106 242 396 877 Palestine (03361650) [.037] [.070] [.098] [-20] [.50] [1.1] [2.6] [4.2] [9.3] Youngs Creek near 107 2.4 4.1 5.7 14 40 103 249 436 1,160 Edinburgh (03362000) [.022] [.038] [.053] [-13] [-37] [-96] [2.3] [4.1] [11] Driftwood River near 1,060 101 150 186 310 665 1,380 2,820 4,450 8,630 Edinburgh (03363000) [.095] [-14] [-18] [-29] [.63] [1.3] [2.7] [4.2] [8.1] 18 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Table 2. Summary of daily mean streamflow characteristics at selected streamflow-gaging stations in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1971-90 water years Continued Percentage of time that daily mean streamflow was greater than or equal to value shown Drainage JQ'° (tf/sandtf/s/mi2) Station name and area (tf/sand identifier (mi2) tf/s/mi2) 95% 90% 75% 50% 25% 10% 5% 1% Flatrock River at St. Paul 303 4.4 15 21 59 168 372 842 1,330 2,760 (03363500) [.015] [.049] [.068] [-19] [-55] [1.2] [2.8] [4.4] [9.1] Clifty Creek at Hartsville 91.4 .00 .19 1.4 7.7 35 97 230 372 1,050 (03364500) [.000] [.002] [.015] [.080] [-38] [1.1] [2.5] [4.1] [12] East Fork White River at 2,341 191 286 365 661 1,490 3,070 6,110 9,790 21,500 Seymour (03365500) [.082] [.12] [.16] [-28] [-64] [1.3] [2.6] [4.2] [9.2] Harberts Creek near 9.3 .00 .04 .12 .63 2.6 9.1 27 60 205 Madison (03366200) [.000] [.004] [.013] [.068] [-28] [-98] [2.9] [6.5] [22] Muscatatuck River at 293 .69 3.5 8.4 25 95 300 831 1,570 4,840 Deputy (03366500) [.002] [-012] [.029] [.086] [-32] [1.0] [2.8] [5.4] [17] Brush Creek near Nebraska 11.4 .00 .01 .05 .49 2.5 8.2 26 60 242 (03368000) [.000] [.001] [.004] [.043] [-22] [-72] [2.2] [5.3] [21] Back Creek at Leesville 24.1 .00 .16 .41 1.9 9.9 31 76 134 397 (03371520) [.000] [.007] [-017] [.079] [-41] [1.3] [3.1] [5.6] [16] Stephens Creek near 10.9 .00 .05 .15 .77 3.9 14 34 61 169 Bloomington (03372300) [.000] [.005] [-014] [-071] [-36] [1.3] [3.1] [5.6] [16] East Fork White River at 4,927 388 563 713 1,410 3,700 7,730 14,400 19,300 31,900 Shoals (03373500) [.079] [.11] [-14] [-29] [-75] [1.6] [2.9] [3.9] [6.5] Lost River near West Baden 287 9.4 18 24 54 164 441 976 1,550 2,970 Springs (03373700) [.033] [.063] [.084] [-19] [-57] [1.5] [3.4] [5.4] [10] White River at Petersburg 11,125 1,050 1,610 2,090 3,720 8,600 17,500 31,300 42,800 70,000 (03374000) [.094] [-14] [-19] [-33] [-77] [1.6] [2.8] [3.8] [6.3] the 1-percent flow duration is used to describe peak in the southern part. Buck Creek, Killbuck Creek, (high) streamflows. The statistic of streamflow that Crooked Creek, and Bean Creek are small streams is used to characterize low streamflow (base flow) in the northern part of the basin; Beanblossom is the 7-day, 10-year low flow (7Q10). The 7Q10 is Creek, Harberts Creek, Brush Creek, Back Creek, the minimum average streamflow for 7 consecutive and Stephens Creek are small streams in the days that has a 10-percent probability of not being southern part. Streamflow in the northern basins exceeded in any year (Fowler and Wilson, 1996). exhibited well-sustained base flow (7Qj0 ranged The 7Q10 is commonly used to allocate waste water from 0.034 to 0.21 ft3/s/mi2) and moderate peak discharges to streams. Additional explanation of flows (streamflow exceeded 1 percent of the time streamflow statistics are given in Arvin (1989) and ranged from 7.8 to 11 ft3/s/mi2). In contrast, Fowler and Wilson (1996). streams in the southern basins went dry during base Streamflow in small drainage basins (drain flow (7Q10 of 0.000 ft3/s/mi2) and had higher peak age areas less than 36 mi2, table 2) was distributed flows (streamflow exceeded 1 percent of the time differently in the northern part of the basin than ranged from 15 to 22 ft3/s/mi2). Hydrology 19 Streamflow-duration curves are cumulative The West Fork White Lick Creek exhibits frequency curves of daily mean streamflows that streamflow characteristics different from the graphically show the percentage of time a particu generalizations made above; the reason for this lar value of streamflow is equaled or exceeded. discrepancy is not known. Although West Fork Duration curves for three small streams illustrate White Lick Creek is located in an area of thick differences in the distribution of streamflow in glacial deposits, the magnitude of base flow and the White River Basin (fig. 11). The shapes of the peak flow is similar to the streams located in the duration curves are determined by the hydrologic southern part of the basin. response to the natural characteristics and human Streamflow in moderately sized drainage influences in the drainage basins. Curves with steep basins (drainage areas from 90 to 326 mi2, table 2) slopes indicate highly variable streamflow, where generally exhibited characteristics similar to those as gentle slopes indicate less-variable streamflow. of base flow and peak flow discussed previously Curves with a steep slope at high streamflows for small drainage basins. Most moderately sized indicate streams substantially affected by surface streams are located in the northern part of the runoff. Curves with a flat slope at low streamflows White River Basin and have sustained base flow indicate basins that store and yield water readily and moderated peak flows. Except for the Flat- and result in well-sustained base flow. rock River, peak flows (11 to 13 ft3/s/mi2) for The difference in streamflow characteristics streams with part of the drainage basin located near between the northern and southern parts of the or south of the Wisconsin glacial boundary (Big basin is related to natural characteristics that Walnut Creek, Mill Creek, and Youngs Creek) include the thickness and water-yielding capacity were greater than peak flows (8.0 to 9.7 ft3/s/mi2) of glacial deposits, the water-yielding capacity of for streams located farther to the north (White River at Muncie, Pipe Creek, Fall Creek, Big Blue bedrock, the permeability of soils, and the slope River, and Sugar Creek). The higher peak stream- and relief of the landscape. Streams in the northern flows may have been caused by increased surface part of the basin drain relatively flat areas of thick runoff from steeper slopes and fragipans in soils glacial deposits. The flat landscape promotes near and south of the Wisconsin glacial boundary. ponding and infiltration of rainfall which moder ates surface runoff and peak flows. Thick glacial Similar to the small streams in the south deposits contain aquifers that discharge water to eastern part of the White River Basin, Clifty Creek streams, which contributes to sustained base flow. and the Muscatatuck River have poorly sustained Streams in the southern part of the basin generally base flow and high peak streamflow. Lost River drain more steeply sloping areas that lack or have drains a large area of a karst plain in the southern, thin glacial deposits. Steep slopes promote surface unglaciated part of the basin. Base flow is sustained runoff, and the limited water-yielding capacity of in the Lost River, probably because of ground- bedrock and thin glacial deposits contribute less water discharge from the karst aquifer. water to base flow. Many of the soils that have Streamflow at stations on the west fork of developed on relatively level areas of older tills the White River (03351000, 03354000, and south of the Wisconsin glacial boundary have 03360500) was compared to that at stations located fragipans that inhibit infiltration and promote in similar positions on the east fork (03363000, surface runoff. The higher amounts of surface run 03365500,03373500; table 2 and fig. 10). off in the south may contribute to greater amounts Base flow in the west fork (7Qjo ranged from of erosion in the unglaciated south-central part of 0.095 to 0.11 ft3/s/mi2) was higher than base flow the basin (approximately 11 ton/acre/yr) than in the in the east fork (7Q10 ranged from 0.079 to glaciated northern part of the basin (approximately 0.095 ft3/s/mi2), probably because of municipal 5 ton/acre/yr) (Governor's Soil Resources Study and industrial wastewater discharged to the west Commission, 1984). fork. Peak streamflows were greater at stations in 20 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin. Indiana n I i I i I i i i i i i i I I i i i r KILLBUCK CREEK NEAR GASTON (TIPTON TILL PLAIN) BRUSH CREEK NEAR NEBRASKA (MUSCATATUCK ,000 REGIONAL SLOPE) BACK CREEK AT LEESVILLE (NORMAN UPLAND) LU o: O QD ^ O O 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 i___i___i i i I I I I II I_____I 0.01 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.99 0.001 0.1 5 20 40 60 80 95 99.9 99.999 PERCENTAGE OF TIME STREAMFLOW WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED Figure 11. Flow-duration curves of daily mean streamflow for three small streams in different physiographic units of the White River Basin, Indiana, 1971-90 water years. Hydrology 21 the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the east thunderstorms, are generally more localized fork (8.1, 9.2, and 6.5 ft3/s/mi2, respectively) than than spring and winter floods. The four largest at similarly located stations on the west fork (7.6, recorded floods in the White River Basin occurred 'j fj 7.3, and 6.3 ft /s/mi , respectively). Lower peak in March 1913, January and February 1937, discharges in the west fork probably can be attrib June and July 1957, and June and August 1979 uted to the capture of surface runoff in numerous (Glatfelter and Butch, 1994). The March 1913 flood-control and water-supply reservoirs located flood is the most severe in Indiana history, with a in the headwaters of the west fork (see "Recreation recurrence interval estimated to exceed 100 years. and Reservoirs" section). Flood peaks were generally less during the 1937 flood than during the 1913 flood but lasted for a Mean monthly streamflow in the White River, longer period of time. The 1957 and 1979 floods the East Fork White River, and their major tribu were not as areally extensive as the 1913 and taries is highest in March and lowest in October 1937 floods. The 1979 flood was caused by three (fig. 12). Although mean monthly streamflow is intense, sequential thunderstorms and caused highest in March, annual peak streamflow (the damage estimated at 50 million dollars (Gold and highest daily mean streamflow measured each Wolcott, 1980). year) can occur in any month of the year. Stream- flow in September varies most from year to year Dry-weather periods in the basin can last (the month with the highest relative standard from weeks to months, depleting public-water deviation of daily mean streamflow), whereas supplies and adversely affecting the health of streamflow in April varies least from year to year. crops and livestock. The most severe droughts on record occurred during March 1930 to August Mean annual runoff in the White River 1931, May 1939 to January 1942, April 1962 to Basin ranged from 12 in. in the north to 17 in. in November 1966, and January to December 1988 the south (fig. 13). Although most of the difference (Fowler, 1992). The 1988 drought caused major in runoff can be attributed to higher precipitation reservoirs in the State to approach or reach record in the southern part of the basin (fig. 3), there is low levels; ground-water levels and streamflow some indication that factors other than precipita also were affected. The 1988 drought was rated tion influence water yield in the basin. Mean "severe" according to the Palmer Drought Severity annual runoff, expressed as a percentage of mean Index but was of shorter duration than the earlier annual precipitation, ranged from approximately droughts (Fowler, 1992). 30 percent in the north to 40 percent in the south. The greater proportion of precipitation that is Surface-Water Quality reflected in streamflow in the south relative to the north might be related to the greater importance of Surface-water quality in the White River surface runoff as a streamflow-generation process Basin can be affected by natural and human in the south. Surface runoff promotes the rapid factors including geology and point and non- movement of water from land to streams and point contamination sources. Water-quality may result in reduced soil moisture and reduced problems in the basin are related primarily to evapotranspiration from soils. agriculture, urbanization, industrialization, and mineral-resource extraction (Indiana Department Floods and Droughts of Environmental Management, 1988, 1990; Jacques and Crawford, 1991). Water-quality Excessive spring rainfall in conjunction standards have been adopted by the State to protect with snowmelt causes the most severe floods in legally designated water uses. Nearly all rivers the basin. Frozen or saturated ground during late and streams in the White River Basin are desig winter and early spring increases the risk of nated for full-body-contact recreation and for flooding. Summer floods, resulting from intense aquatic-life uses (327 Indiana Administrative 22 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana THOUSANDS OF CUBIC THOUSANDS OF CUBIC THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FEET PER SECOND FEET PER SECOND 0 p o p ca B IS* m 3 O o < ? - <& °3 £g THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CD o p p p p p =3 CD_ CD O CD Q. (O Q) CO 8 - 8 § 3 5 CD 30 CO THOUSANDS OF CUBIC O) THOUSANDS OF CUBIC THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FEET PER SECOND FEET PER SECOND o p p p p p p o o p o '-* '-L ho io bi bo 01 o tn o 01 =3 O 03 C? ^ CD O) 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' 39° 38°30' 1 I I T 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Sutvey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION ^ 16- Line of equal mean annual runoff, in inches White River Basin boundary Figure 13. Mean annual runoff in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1961-90 water years. 24 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Code 2-1-3). Spills, point-source discharges, and calcium carbonate). Streams in the basin also storm runoff can render a stream reach unsuitable generally are well buffered and alkaline, with a for its designated use. Water-quality data and other median pH ranging from 7.7 to 7.9. information were evaluated by the Indiana Depart Trimmed boxplots (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992) ment of Environmental Management to assess were constructed to graphically display the varia progress in meeting the fishable and swimmable water-quality goals of the Clean Water Act. tion in hardness and alkalinity in the White River Basin for water years 1981 through 1990 for In the East Fork White River Basin, 54 per the IDEM data (figs. 15 and 16). The boxplots cent of the assessed stream miles fully supported show that hardness and alkalinity decrease with aquatic-life uses, but none of the assessed stream distance downstream in the west fork of the White miles fully supported full-body-contact recreation. River and the east fork of the White River. In the In the remainder of the White River Basin, 82 per northern part of the White River Basin, high con cent of the assessed stream miles fully supported centrations of hardness and alkalinity result from aquatic-life uses, but only 5 percent fully sup the dissolution of carbonate minerals in the glacial ported full-body-contact recreation (Indiana deposits as rainfall infiltrates the till and discharges Department of Environmental Management, as ground water to nearby streams. In the southern 1994). A primary cause of streams failing to fully part of the basin, sources of hardness and alkalinity support aquatic-life uses were polychlorinated are less abundant because unconsolidated deposits biphenyls or chlordane in fish tissue that resulted are thinner (resulting in lower amounts of carbon in fish-consumption advisories. Bacterial con ate minerals) and the underlying bedrock, even tamination of stream water (Indiana Department where it is composed of carbonate minerals, is of Environmental Management, 1994) was a less soluble than the calcareous minerals that are primary cause of streams failing to support full- ground up in the till. In addition, streams in the body-contact recreation. Other constituents northern part of the basin have sustained base that have impaired water quality in the basin are flow, resulting in a larger percentage of streamflow ammonia, metals, suspended solids, biochemical- being comprised of ground-water discharge than oxygen demand, and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (Indiana Department of Environ occurs for streams in the southern part of the basin. mental Management, 1994). Statewide, the Ground-water discharge contributes higher con major sources of impaired stream quality are centrations of alkalinity and hardness than does agricultural non-point sources, municipal or semi- surface runoff. public discharges, industrial discharges, urban As part of the White River Basin study, runoff, and combined-sewer overflows (Indiana the U.S. Geological Survey sampled 48 small Department of Environmental Management, streams in the basin during a period of base flow in 1994). (See "Waste-Disposal Practices" section March 1992 (fig. 17). Names and locations of the for discussions on the effects of these point and 48 stations are given in Carter and others (1995). non-point sources on water quality.) Because small streams receive water primarily Several water-quality-monitoring stations from ground-water seepage during periods of on White River and East Fork White River have base flow, the sample chemistry approximates been sampled regularly from 1957 to the present the maximum mineralization present in the stream- by the IDEM to describe physical characteristics water. Results of the study indicate that the upland and concentrations of nutrients and inorganic physiographic areas (Crawford Upland and constituents in the streams (fig. 14 and table 3). Norman Upland) had the lowest concentrations The IDEM data indicate that streams in the White of dissolved solids (median concentration of River Basin are calcium-bicarbonate water types 140 mg/L), and the Tipton Till Plain and Wabash and are very hard (greater than 150 mg/L as Lowland had the highest (median concentration Hydrology 25 87°30' 87° 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' 39° 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES 1 I I T 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION MONITORING SITES White River Basin boundary EW168 Indiana Department of Environmental Management surface-water-quality-monitoring station and identifier Figure 14. Location of Indiana Department of Environmental Management surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana. 26 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 500 WHITE RIVER D_ ^ 300 o T T V i - O C£ 200 C£ UJ 100 EAST FORK WHITE RIVER 400 O i ^ 300 90TH PERCENTILE ~- Figure 15. Distribution of hardness concentrations at surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana, 1981-90 water years. (Data from Indiana State Board of Health, 1981-85, and Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 1986-91. Locations of monitoring stations are shown in figure 14.) Hydrology 27 JJU WHITE RIVER uj y CL < oo Z ' r1! A r1, i rth : < DO D h - 1 oSo: ££ 150 f= JJU Pi ^ EAST FORK WHITE RIVER LiJ | - D_ < JL 00 ^ __I 1 < ^ - 10TH PERCENTILE c;n Figure 16. Distribution of alkalinity concentrations at surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana, 1981-90 water years. (Data from Indiana State Board of Health, 1981-85, and Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 1986-91. Locations of monitoring stations are shown in figure 14.) 28 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° Parke 30' Vigo V xjftf/i, c * I B'oominglon j C^^. J \ °^ O ( ' ^V* /~ ~"~7| ^^^ ^fS1 Brown [ , Bartholomew u/* I ' ,J^/j^-yw<^ l/\r' I. , . 1^- L . _ . ~ | Jenning^^,'-'»(/Ripley 39° ' -. Jackson .^ j ^kTee^ .» x-. ^W ^ jj 7-^j. ^,^.. ,r- - r Washington '--rj 38°30' 0 10 20 30 40 MILES I I ,i i____i I i \ r I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000.1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Physiographic units i I Tipton Till Plain i- ZZ3 Wabash Lowland i I Crawford Upland Mitchell Plain Norman Upland Scottsburg Lowland t. i Muscatatuck Regional Slope White River Basin boundary Base-flow water-quality-sampling site Figure 17. Location of small-stream, base-flow water-quality-sampling sites in the White River Basin, Indiana, March 1992. Hydrology 29 TableS. Description of selected Indiana Department of Environmental Management surface-water-quality-monitoring stations on the White, Big Blue, and East Fork White Rivers, Indiana [Station locations shown in figure 14; mi2, square miles; U.S., United States highway; US, upstream; DS, downstream; SR, state road; WTP, wastewater-treatment plant; CR, county road] Drainage area Sampling Site number Site name (mi2) frequency Location and comments Sites on White River WR348 White River at Winchester 35 Monthly At U.S. 27 WR319 White River at Muncie 220 Monthly US from Memorial Street WR309 White River at Yorktown 248 Monthly 2.8 miles DS from Muncie WTP WR293 White River at Anderson 406 Monthly At West 10th Street WR279 White River at Perkinsville 555 Monthly At SR 13, 11 miles DS from Anderson WTP WR248 White River at Nora 1,219 Monthly At SR 100, 3 miles DS from Carmel WTP WR2101 White River at Waverly 2,026 Monthly At SR 144, DS from Indianapolis WTP's WR162 White River at Spencer 2,988 Monthly At SR 43 and SR 46 WR81 White River at Edwardsport 5,012 Monthly At SR 358 WR46 White River at Petersburg 11,125 Monthly At SR 61 Sites on East Fork White River BL64 Big Blue River near Spiceland 66 Quarterly At CR 400S, DS from New Castle WTP BL.7 Big Blue River at Edinburg 583 Quarterly At U.S. 31, DS from Edinburg WTP EW168 East Fork White River at Seymour 2,340 Monthly At Seymour Waterworks intake EW94 East Fork White River at Bedford 4,047 Monthly At SR 37 EW79 East Fork White River at Williams 4,720 Monthly DS from Williams Dam, DS from Bedford WTP EW1 East Fork White River at Petersburg 5,744 Monthly At SR 57 rData fromWR205, White River at Centerton, were merged with data from WR210. of 358 and 366 mg/L, respectively). The geology Surface-water quality in the White River of the upland areas, dominated by noncarbonate Basin varies seasonally because of changes in bedrock, thin soils, and high runoff-rainfall ratios, temperature, amount of daylight, agricultural and results in small chemical concentrations in water other human activity, surface runoff, and ground- discharged to streams from ground water. The water input. The IDEM water-quality-monitoring thick, flat, glacial deposits that blanket the till data suggest that the concentration of dissolved plain or the loess deposits in the Wabash Lowland, oxygen (an important indicator of surface-water quality) is lowest from late spring to fall. Lower conversely, allow long periods for ground water dissolved-oxygen concentrations occur despite to react with soils and aquifers and to acquire increased photosynthesis (which increases dis substantial quantities of dissolved constituents. solved-oxygen concentrations) in surface water Ground-water seepage into streams in the till plain during the growing season. Three factors can be and Wabash Lowland, as a result, has higher identified to explain the low dissolved-oxygen concentrations of most constituents than ground concentrations: (1) temperature-dependent water in the unglaciated parts of the basin (figs. 18 processes such as biochemical oxygenation of and 19). sewage effluents occur at a faster rate during 30 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Z JU i i i i i IZU i i i i i _ A £r Ct: - rv . UJ ^ UJ 200 - A ^> i ID ^> _i 90 - - o a: i i rx _J UJ - Z. UJ 150 O D- A 0 oo < 00 60 - Q ^ "^^ "^> UJ S § 0 | 30 50 - 1 | ^ 1 - - 1 I | - Q -^ 5 CO S ^ #? A i i Zu i i Q B H 0 1 1 m I 1 0 1 1 ^p i i 250 1 1 I 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 Q, . ~~_2 UJcc ' A 200 - ^ UJ ^ i - ) j -A > - 6 COoo Q^ - A O Q_ 150 00 , A CO - ^"^ C/0 Q ^ Q ^ 4 ^ "^ 100 - Q < A *"i Q^ UJ Q^ /\ o S^ A A A CO J A 0 ^ 2 00 zd 50 CO O S 00 ^ If S s A A Q S iiii n " A i A 1 I n 7T\ /\ 1 A 1 EXPLANATION TTP - TIPTON TILL PLAIN WL - WABASH LOWLAND CNU - CRAWFORD AND NORMAN UPLANDS MP - MITCHELL PLAIN MRSSL - MUSCATATUCK REGIONAL SLOPE AND SCOTTSBURG LOWLAND Figure 18. Major cation concentrations measured during base-flow conditions in small streams of the White River Basin, Indiana, March 1992. Hydrology 31 »'O- CO5 ^ =1 DISSOLVED FLUORIDE, IN DISSOLVED CHLORIDE, IN S^ Q =» 5' 3> O ^5 , 1,1,1,1, , 1,1,1,1, CO o- C ^ r9 so 0 > ^ CO ~7^ ^ ~ CD ^ ^> o" ^D ^ 1 ^ o DISSOLVED SILICA, IN DISSOLVED SULFATE, IN o 0 g o MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MILLIGRAMS PER LITER 3 -^ ^- a. i c _ o' 3 ^2 iso -i^ en oo c CO '0 O ' » O O O O C 3' -^^D o -f^ oo r-o cnoooooc m ^ CO I 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3> -n 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' Q3_ ^~ ~z. o 7^^ C? ^D /^ ff _r^r*^ne*c^.r-^-i>Cg>L»E>[> -O^.9" I'30 ^ CO 0 CD O 3> /, SO 0 z ^/ 00 3 t> t>DM>ID^ - W> > > - a> CO =1 ° 0 °° ^ Ol/x CD O r£/ 3" t>t>C&> DgW> - » - CD ^D ^ CD j> ^/O 3^ I Z c$>t>n^f> > - p> ^ C ^0 CD 30<' S ~o S/ 3> t> " ^^ C-* C'E-E-* C-* ^^ CD ^ ^ CD 0 o SO CO 1,1,1, , 1,1,1,1, CO the warm months; (2) water thermodynarnically Indiana generally is very hard 100 to 600 mg/L retains less oxygen at higher temperatures; and as calcium carbonate with the highest concen (3) ground water, which typically has low concen trations in bedrock aquifers. Iron and sulfate trations of dissolved oxygen, is the principal source concentrations also are high in many aquifers. of flow to most streams during the dry periods of The following sections describe the aquifer types summer and early fall. Other constituent concentra in the White River Basin. tions that vary seasonally in streams in the White River Basin include herbicide concentrations that Glaciofluvial Aquifers increase in late spring following herbicide applica The glaciofluvial aquifers consist of sand tion to cropland (Carter and others, 1995). Nutrient and gravel deposited by glacial meltwaters and are concentrations in the White River Basin also vary covered by a thin layer (0 to 15 ft) of finer-grained seasonally and are described in Martin and others alluvium deposited by post-glacial streams. The (1996). Seasonal variations of some constituent aquifers typically are unconfined and are among concentrations in the coal-mining region in the the most productive in the State. The glaciofluvial southwestern part of the White River Basin are aquifers are restricted to a narrow band beneath described in Martin and Crawford (1987). and along rivers and streams throughout the White River Basin. The aquifers may be 0.1 to 0.5 mi Ground Water wide on smaller streams (drainage areas less than --\ 100 mi") but range from 2 to 6 mi wide on larger Two general types of aquifers are present in streams such as the White River and East Fork the White River Basin unconsolidated aquifers White River. Glaciofluvial aquifers are widest and bedrock aquifers. The primary unconsolidated adjacent to and beneath the White River in Marion, aquifers are glaciofluvial aquifers and till aquifers. Knox, Daviess, Pike, and Gibson Counties and Unconsolidated aquifers occur throughout the on the East Fork White River in Bartholomew northern part of the basin. The principal bedrock and Jackson Counties. aquifers are Silurian and Devonian carbonate The thickness and permeability of the glacio aquifers and Mississippian carbonate aquifers. fluvial aquifers make them productive. Aquifer Minor aquifers that cannot support large with- thicknesses generally range from 20 to 80 ft but drawls include sand lenses in pre-Wisconsin-age are greater than 100 ft thick in several places till, Pennsylvanian-age coal-bearing bedrock, along the White River and East Fork White River Mississippian-age clastic bedrock, and Devonian- (Gray, 1983). The aquifers are predominately age shale. Comprehensive discussions of the homogeneous sand and gravel deposits, with a few aquifers in the White River Basin are given in interbedded layers of finer-grained silt and clay. Hoover and Durbin (1994) and Fenelon and The silt and clay layers are commonly discontinu Greeman (1994). ous but, where present, locally may reduce the Ground-water quality and quantity vary as vertical hydraulic conductivity enough to create a result of many factors, such as aquifer composi semi-confined conditions. Measured hydraulic tion, aquifer depth, ground-water flow-regime, conductivities of glaciofluvial deposits in Marion and surficial land use. The quantity and quality of County were 415 ft/d for gravel, 240 ft/d for sand the ground water in the White River Basin meet and gravel, 40 ft/d for sand, and 1 to 7x10~2 ft/d for the needs of most users. Withdrawal rates range clay (Meyer and others, 1975). Aquifer-test data from 10 to 600 gal/min from wells in the bedrock indicate a ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic aquifers to as much as 2,000 gal/min from wells conductivity of 1:10. The depth to water in glacio in thick glaciofluvial deposits. Ground water in fluvial aquifers is generally 10 to 25 ft, and wells Hydrology 33 are typically 20 to 80 ft deep. Infiltration rates are shown to decrease in till aquifers with increasing rapid, and transmissivity rates in the sand and well depth (Indiana Farm Bureau Inc., 1994). gravel deposits can be over 20,000 ft2/d (Meyer Decreasing pesticide concentrations with depth and others, 1975; Gillies, 1976). Because glacioflu- probably result from the filtration capabilities of vial aquifers are highly permeable and commonly the clay-rich tills and the long residence times that unconfined, these aquifers are some of the most the agricultural chemicals have to react with the easily contaminated in the basin. fine-grained materials and metabolizing bacteria. Glaciofluvial aquifers have high dissolved- Median concentrations reported for some constitu solids concentrations (median 546 mg/L) and ents in till aquifers are 0.2 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen, very hard water (median 340 mg/L, as calcium 9 mg/L chloride, 1.9 mg/L iron, 358 mg/L dis carbonate) (Banaszak, 1988). In addition, com solved solids, and 320 mg/L as calcium carbonate pared to other aquifers in the White River Basin, hardness (Banaszak, 1988). The high concentra the glaciofluvial aquifers have high concentrations tions of iron and low concentrations of nitrate may of nitrate (median 1.4 mg/L as nitrogen) and result from anaerobic conditions in the till aquifers. chloride (median 16 mg/L) and low concentra tions of iron (median 0.10 mg/L) (Banaszak, Silurian and Devonian Carbonate Aquifers 1988). High concentrations of nitrate (greater The Silurian and Devonian carbonate aquifers than 10 mg/L) occurred in more than 10 percent underlie the Tipton Till Plain and Scottsburg Low of water samples collected from the glaciofluvial land physiographic units. These aquifers almost aquifers (Banaszak, 1988). always are confined and consist of fractured carbonates of Silurian and Devonian age. Silurian Till Aquifers and Devonian carbonate aquifers can yield water The till aquifers are located primarily in till from the entire 500- to 600-ft-thick section, sequences north of the Wisconsin glacial boundary. although the uppermost 200 ft are generally the The aquifers consist of sand and gravel deposits most productive. Depths of wells completed in that are commonly laterally discontinuous and Silurian and Devonian carbonate aquifers are enclosed in thicker sequences of silty-clay and clay generally 50 to 250 ft. Well yields vary from 20 till of Wisconsin and pre-Wisconsin age. As many to 600 gal/min. Representative transmissivities as six sand and gravel units, all productive aqui for bedrock aquifers vary widely, but values range fers, can be contained within one till sequence from 500 to 10,000 ft2/d and average 2,000 ft2/d. (Lapham, 1981); however, fewer aquifers typically are present in a sequence. The thickness of individ The high dissolved solids and hardness con ual sand and gravel aquifers ranges from 5 to 50 ft centrations in the Silurian and Devonian carbonate but is typically 5 to 10 ft. Aquifers can be con aquifer (medians of 513 mg/L and 333 mg/L, as nected vertically but generally the silty-clay and calcium carbonate, respectively) were similar to clay till layers, which are 5 to 100 ft thick, function concentrations of these water-quality parameters in as confining units between sand and gravel aqui the glaciofluvial aquifers (Banaszak, 1988). The fers. Most wells screened in the till aquifers are median concentration of nitrate was low (0.1 mg/L 20 to 100 ft deep (Banaszak, 1988). as nitrogen), whereas iron was high (1.1 mg/L) compared to that in the glaciofluvial aquifers Recharge rates of the till aquifers are approx (Banaszak, 1988). imately 2 in/yr (Lapham, 1981). High clay content of the till units slows recharge and promotes run The Silurian and Devonian carbonate aquifers off, but it also protects the aquifers by retarding are overlain by the New Albany Shale (Devonian migration of surface contaminants such as agricul and Mississippian age). The New Albany Shale is tural chemicals. Pesticide concentrations have been exposed at the surface in the Scottsburg Lowland. 34 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana This shale is an organic-rich, black shale that con Sulfate concentrations from wells in the Mississip tains some beds with high amounts of trace metals, pian carbonate aquifer in Orange County have arsenic (Leininger, 1981; Ripley and others, 1990), exceeded 600 mg/L (Indiana Department of and radon (Hasenmueller and Nauth, 1988). The Environmental Management, 1990); the U.S. En New Albany Shale may contribute constituents to vironmental Protection Agency recommends that surface water and ground water that may adversely sulfate concentrations in public drinking water affect the quality of the resources. be less than 250 mg/L (U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, 1996) because of odors or unpleasant Mississippian Carbonate Aquifer taste. Radon has been detected in the terra rosa soil The Mississippian carbonate aquifer is at that covers the bedrock (Hasenmueller and Nauth, or near land surface throughout the Mitchell 1988). Plain physiographic unit. Much of the carbonate aquifer system has dual porosity, whereby Minor Aquifers dissolution-widened joints and fractures allow Minor aquifers in the White River Basin rapid transmission of ground water relative to the include sand lenses in pre-Wisconsin-age till south bulk volume of the aquifer. Ground water and of the Wisconsin glacial boundary, Pennsylvanian- surface water are connected and many streams age coal-bearing bedrock (commonly sandstone), periodically disappear into surface openings, flow Mississippian-age clastic bedrock, and Devonian- underground for a distance, and reappear at a downgradient surface opening. age shale. These aquifers are found in the southern and southwestern parts of the basin. Water wells Aquifer recharge is derived locally from in the minor aquifers are suitable only for domestic precipitation. Ground-water levels in the Missis use; many wells yield less than 10 gal/min. Water sippian carbonate aquifer respond rapidly to from the Pennsylvanian-age coal-bearing bedrock intense rainfall or snowmelt. Well yields are vari and the Devonian shale generally contain signifi able and largely dependent on the number and cant concentrations of iron, causing an unpleasant dimensions of fractures intercepted by the screened taste as well as stains in laundry and sinks. Water- interval of a well. Wells that do not intercept a water-bearing fracture may not produce enough quality indicators such as hardness, chloride, and water to supply domestic needs of a single resi nitrate are similar to other aquifers in the basin. dence. Average well yield is 5 gal/min but may Median concentrations in the minor aquifers were be as high as 30 gal/min. Transmissivity values hardness, 314 mg/L as calcium carbonate; chlo can be high in open, free-flowing fractures. ride, 12 mg/L; and nitrate, 0.5 mg/L as nitrogen (Banaszak, 1988). In the southwestern part of The direct hydraulic connection between the basin, primarily in Clay and Greene Counties, land surface and the aquifer makes the Mississip pian carbonate aquifer highly susceptible to wells completed in coal seams or sandstone contamination. Agricultural chemicals, accidental aquifers greater than 100 ft deep produce soft, spills, and other sources of contamination may be sodium-chloride type water. Concentrations of transported directly from the surface to the aquifer. sodium and chloride in these deep wells may be Septic systems and other waste-disposal systems as high as 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L, respectively. pose additional threats to water quality in the Other characteristics of Clay and Greene County aquifer. Nitrate derived from fertilizers and animal "soda water" are pH exceeding 9.0, dissolved waste has been detected in water samples collected solids concentrations as high as 1,600 mg/L, and from domestic wells (Wells and Krothe, 1989). fluoride as high as 4 mg/L (Forbes, 1984). Hydrology 35 Surface-Water and Ground-Water Interaction water-storage capacity of spoil banks in surface- coal-rnined areas have been shown to sustain Understanding the interaction between base flow in mined basins where nearby streams surface water and ground water is necessary to in unrnined basins had no flow (Corbett, 1965). understanding the hydrology of the White River The occurrence of impounded water bodies in the Basin. In the White River Basin, ground water generally flows into streams through the permeable mined areas enhances base flow and, where sediments that line the stream channel. Meyer the water bodies contact bedrock, enhances and others (1975) showed that streams in Marion recharge to bedrock (Martin and others, 1990). County gain water from the ground-water system The interaction between surface water and throughout the year; estimated seepage rates into ground water has implications for water quality. the White River were 42 ft3/d/ft of channel length. Ground water can acquire chemical constituents Similar rates of ground-water seepage (40.5 ft3/d/ft from natural sources in soils and aquifers and of channel length) were calculated for the White anthropogenic sources such as agricultural River near Carmel, Ind. (Gillies, 1976). chemicals and landfills that eventually seep into Although ground water typically discharges nearby streams. Chemical processes in aquifers, to streams, the hydraulic gradient may be reversed such as mineral precipitation, ion exchange, in some situations and surface water may flow into oxidation-reduction reactions, and biochemical the aquifer. Bobay (1988) determined that during transformations, however, also can remove flooding, water levels in the White River rose to chemicals that might otherwise reach surface-water a point at which gradients were reversed and bodies. In the case of streamwater that leaks into surface water seeped into the adjacent sand and an adjacent aquifer, especially after flooding, con gravel aquifers. Some reaches of the White River stituents in surface water can enter the aquifer lose water to the underlying aquifers during dry (Squillace and others, 1996). periods because ground-water levels fall below the water level in the stream; this condition has been observed in headwater reaches of the White Environmental Setting of the White River in Hamilton County (Arihood, 1982) and Randolph County (Lapham and Arihood, 1984). River Basin: Human Influences Flow restrictions that cause local increases in stream water levels, such as lowhead dams, also The effects of human activities on the quality may cause water to infiltrate into the adjacent of ground water and surface water are generally aquifer. unintentional but can be significant. In the White The degree of interaction between surface River Basin, human-related activities most strongly water and ground water is influenced partly by the affect water quality in areas where urban and thickness and water-storage capacity of the aquifer agricultural land uses are predominant. Major deposits. Peak flows are typically much higher for non-point sources of contamination include streams in areas where bedrock is near the surface, (1) pesticide and nutrient applications related to compared to regions where glacial deposits domi fanning; (2) siltation related to fanning, grazing, nate the landscape. The water-storage capacity of mining, and construction; and (3) urban runoff. glacial deposits tends to minimize extremes in peak Major point sources of contamination include flows. In addition to regional changes in geologic outfalls related to wastewater-treatment plants, characteristics, local changes in geology or human industrial discharges, power-generation-plant influences can affect the degree of surface-water cooling-tank releases, combined-sewer overflows, and ground-water interaction. For example, the and landfills. 36 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Land Use Agricultural activities may significantly affect concentrations of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, Agriculture is the principal land use in the and pesticides in surface and ground water. The White River Basin. Approximately 70 percent U.S. Department of Agriculture described Indiana of the basin is used for agriculture, primarily for as "the State with the most threatened water supply row crops and pasture. Other land uses are forest in the country" as a result of the nitrate and pesti (22 percent), urban and residential (7 percent), cide concentrations that were found in the State's drinking-water supplies (Taylor, 1989). The north water and wetlands (0.7 percent), and barren land ern, southwestern, and southeastern parts of the (0.4 percent) (fig. 20). (Strip mines, quarries, and White River Basin have the greatest row-crop exposed bedrock are considered "barren land.") production; consequently, these are the areas where The Geographic Information Retrieval and the most varieties and quantities of nutrients and Analysis System (GIRAS) is the source for this pesticides are used. The south-central part of the land-use information, which was interpreted from basin has less row-crop agriculture than other areas aerial photography taken during the 1970's and in the basin because of greater relief and thinner mid-1980's (U.S. Geological Survey, 1990) soils; as a result, fewer pesticides and nutrients are and revised by Hitt (1994). applied to the land surface in this area. Agricultural emphasis in the south-central part of the basin is Agriculture cattle and swine production (fig. 21). Instead of pesticides, surface and ground water in this part Indiana is an important agricultural state. In of the basin may show elevated concentrations of 1991, Indiana ranked fourth nationally in soybean bacteria and nitrogen compounds produced by production (172,770,000 bu), fifth in corn produc animal waste. tion (510,600,000 bu), fourth in hog production (4,600,000 head), and seventh in turkey production Forest (15,000,000 birds) (Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992). Indiana also produced significant Most forested areas in the White River amounts of winter wheat (28,800,000 bu), cattle Basin are in the Crawford and Norman Uplands (1,280,000 head), and chickens (25,900,000 birds). physiographic units. Forested areas are not large, Based on county-level data, approximately contiguous tracts of land but are intermixed with 1.2 million hogs and 385,000 cattle were raised agricultural land; the area identified as forest land in the basin in 1991 (Indiana Agricultural Statistics use in figure 20 includes mixed forest and pasture Service, 1992). land uses. Virgin stands of timber are rare and consequently most wooded areas are second- or More than 80 percent of the agricultural land third-growth forests. No streams in the basin with in the White River Basin is used for crop produc a drainage area greater than 10 mi drain only tion. Of the estimated 3.6 million acres of cropland forested land. Forest areas are generally on ridges in the basin in 1992, 43 percent were planted for and have steep (10 to 50 percent) slopes. corn, 35 percent were planted for soybeans, 4 per cent were planted for winter wheat, and 6 percent Urban and Industry were harvested for hay. Other crops planted to a much lesser extent include apples, barley, Most of the urban land in the White River cucumbers, green beans, melons, oats, potatoes, Basin is residential. The population of the White pumpkins, rye, sorghum, strawberries, tobacco, River Basin was approximately 2.1 million in and tomatoes. South of Indianapolis, winter wheat 1990. The largest cities are located in the northern often is planted in fields harvested for soybeans part of the basin. In 1990, Indianapolis was the to achieve a double crop in those fields. 12th largest city in the United States, and the Land Use 37 87°30' 87° 30' 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' 39° ^j ^^1ve^^p;; *--£.:; ^ :; cf /J / ^^., * ^r i 38°30' 0 10 20 30 40 MILES Gibson 1 I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°301, central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Land use and land cover Urban or built-up land Agricultural land Forest land Water Wetland i Barren land White River Basin boundary Figure 20. Land use in the White River Basin, Indiana. (Data from U.S. Geological Survey, 1990, as modified by Hitt, 1994.) 38 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana EXPLANATION EXPLANATION Percentage of county planted in corn Percentage of county planted in soybeans OtolO LZH OtolO I I 11 to 20 LZH 11 to 20 M 21 to 30 EH] 21 to 30 ^H Greater than 30 ^H Greater than 30 Vigo Vigo EXPLANATION EXPLANATION Number of hogs and pigs produced in each county Number of cattle produced in each county LZH Less than 25,000 I I Less than 5,000 LZH 25,000 to 49,999 LZH 5,000 to 9,999 50,000 to 100,000 EZZI 10,000 to 20,000 Greater than 100,000 < Greater than 20,000 1£ Boons, Parke Vigo "Dubois "Duboi Gibson Gibson Figure 21. Percent of land planted in corn and soybeans and cattle and swine production in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1992. (Data from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994.) Land Use 39 Indianapolis Metropolitan Area was the 29th Most industry in the White River Basin largest metropolitan area. The population of the is located near large urban areas. Major industries Indianapolis Metropolitan Area (Boone, Hamilton, include primary metal processing, fabricated Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, metal products, transportation-equipment manu Morgan, and Shelby Counties), nearly all of which facturing, electrical-equipment manufacturing, is contained in the northern part of the White River and heavy-machinery production (Crompton and Basin, was 1,380,491 in 1990 (U.S. Department Graves, 1987). Storm runoff, discharges from of Commerce, 1992). The populations of Muncie municipal wastewater systems and power- and Anderson, in the northern part of the basin, and generation plants, and other processes associated Bloomington, in the southern part of the basin, with intense urbanization and industrialization were between 50,000 and 75,000 in 1990. Popula may affect ground- and surface-water quality. tion density ranges from 44 people/mi2 in Brown County, in the forested south-central part of the Recreation and Reservoirs basin, to 2,000 people/mi2 in Marion County, in the urbanized north-central part of the basin. Popu Numerous recreation areas are located in lation density in the basin is shown in figure 22. the White River Basin (fig. 25). Hill and valley Significant population growth has occurred landscapes in the southern half of the basin are during the last 50 yrs in the White River Basin scenic and most state and federal parks, forests, (fig. 23). Much of this growth occurred in the and wildlife refuges in the basin are located in Indianapolis Metropolitan Area and, in the last this area. Fish and wildlife areas and a variety of 20 yrs, high rates of population growth have wildlife habitats (including forests, grasslands, occurred along the main transportation arteries and wetlands) are maintained in conjunction with entering Indianapolis. Counties with the greatest recreation areas. Several reservoirs, originally built increase in population during 1940 to 1990 are for flood control or continuous water supply, are Marion County and surrounding counties adjacent to State-owned recreation areas. In the Hamilton, Hendricks, and Johnson Counties southern half of the White River Basin, where (fig. 24). Delaware and Monroe Counties also streamflow is variable and ground-water supplies have had significant increases in population. are limited, reservoirs have been constructed to Estimated population in White River Basin YEAR Figure 23. Population growth in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1820-1990. (Data from Forstall, 1996.) 40 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° I 1 1 I 40°30' - r "'Av "~"]^'/7 I Madison f \ / 'I "" ^Tipton^i|_ J i Muncie ' -I HamTlto7 \9 ' !^"e ° ^^ - 40° ( / x / w r ^ / V ! .'^J/ JHancocki -A/ \ <^ M i V f 1 A MA I l^>l- 301 39° 38°30' Gibson 10 20 30 40 MILES I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Population density, in people per square mile I ZZI Less than 100 i I 100 to 799 H 800 to 3,999 3 4,000 to 10,000 Greater than 10,000 White River Basin boundary Figure 22. Population density in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1990. Land Use 41 87°30' 87° 30' 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' Vigo 39° 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES I ____I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Change in population density, in people per square mile, 1940-90 l ~~i -20 toO l Zl Oto49 i -- -- - j 50 to 99 C"~-. . 100 to 249 Greater than 250 White River Basin boundary Figure 24. Change in population density in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1940-90. (Data from Forstall, 1996. 42 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - , I Randolph J | Madiso-n" j-^ZK.Qsi&t, .^'"^ 40° 30' 39° 36°30- 40 MILES Gibson "1 I T 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 AJbers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Major reservoirs National forests; Federal military areas; State parks, forest, fish, and wildlife areas White River Basin boundary Figure 25. Managed Federal and State lands and major reservoirs in the White River Basin, Indiana. Land Use 43 provide a sustained source of water. Table 4 lists samples with large sulfate concentrations in reservoirs in the White River Basin that have a figure 19 are from small streams in the Wabash normal capacity of at least 5,000 acre-ft. The Lowland that partially drain strip-mined areas. largest reservoir in the basin is Monroe Reservoir Limestone quarries are numerous in the karst located in Monroe and Brown Counties. This *j area in the south-central part of the basin. The reservoir, with a surface area of almost 17 mi , Salem Limestone outcrops near the east edge of is the second largest in Indiana. the Mitchell Plain and has rock properties desirable Water-quality problems in reservoirs gener for building construction. Stone quarries and mills ally are related to the land-use practices in the in Monroe and Lawrence Counties are important watershed. Agricultural practices affect reservoir local industries that supply building stone nation water quality in a variety of ways, including sedi ally and internationally. Other quarries produce mentation and seasonal pesticide and nutrient high-calcium limestone used as flux in steel mills, contamination (Scribner and others, 1996). road aggregate, concrete and cement, and agricul Pesticides can accumulate in the tissues of aquatic tural lime; the Paoli Limestone, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, and St. Louis Limestone Formations organisms and cause chronic health problems. are mined to supply these industries (Hartke and Nutrient accumulation in reservoirs can cause Gray, 1989). undesired algal growth that indirectly affects the health of other flora and fauna. Waste-Disposal Practices Mines and Quarries Improper waste-disposal practices can result Strip mining and stone quarrying account in point sources of contamination that strongly for about 0.4 percent of the land use in the White influence the quality of ground and surface water. River Basin. Mines and quarries use small amounts Human-generated sewage, confined-feeding- of water to process their products and affect the operation wastes, and landfills are the most local hydrology only if operators pump ground commonly identified sources of contamination water to hold the water table below the depth of from improper waste-disposal practices. activity. Most quarries are small (less than I acre), Aging septic systems are prone to failure. and many have been abandoned. Indications of septic-system failure may be Coal has been mined extensively from the detected by changes in ground-water quality Pennsylvanian rocks in the southwestern part of that commonly include increased concentrations the White River Basin. Strip mining is the most of detergents, chloride (from water softeners), commonly used method for extracting coal from nutrients, and bacteria. In addition to septic the subsurface in Indiana. A by-product of strip systems, most rural residents also use shallow mining is large quantities of permeable crushed domestic-supply wells for water supplies. The rock that contain reactive minerals. When exposed safety of well water may be compromised by to infiltrating rainfall, the reactive minerals readily proximity to a failing septic system. dissolve and become constituents in ground and In urban settings, human sewage is processed surface water. Runoff from strip mines has been through wastewater-treatment plants. Cities dis shown to increase dissolved solids, sulfate, iron, charging treated sewage effluent to the west fork manganese, and sediment and to decrease pH and of the White River include Muncie, Anderson, the quality of biota in streams receiving the runoff Noblesville, Indianapolis, and Martinsville. (Corbett, 1969; Peters, 1981; Wangsness, 1982; Columbus and Seymour discharge treated sewage Wilber and others, 1985; Martin and Crawford, effluent to the East Fork White River. Thirty-five 1987; Renn, 1989). The two Wabash Lowland wastewater-treatment plants discharge at least 44 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Table 4. Reservoirs in the White River Basin, Indiana, with a normal capacity of at least 5,000 acre-feet, 1988 [Data from Ruddy and Hitt, 1990, table 3; C, flood control; R, recreation; S, water supply; , no data] Drainage Normal Maximum Surface area Year Name of reservoir capacity capacity area (square com (alternate names) Name of stream County (acre/feet) (acre/feet) (acres) miles) pleted Use Cataract Lake Mill Creek Owen and 27,112 390,731 4,840 295 1953 C,R (Cagles Mill Lake; Putnam Lieber Reservoir) Cordry Lake Saddle Creek Brown 6,320 6,650 169 -- 1953 R Dogwood Lake Mud Creek Daviess 20,400 36,600 1,300 1963 R (Glendale Reservoir) Eagle Creek Reservoir Eagle Creek Marion 24,000 110,000 1,350 162 1967 C,R, S Geist Reservoir Fall Creek Marion and 21,180 60,000 1,800 215 1944 R,S Hamilton Glenn Flint Lake Little Walnut Creek Putnam 5,900 15,844 379 -- 1976 C,R Grandview Lake East Fork White Creek Bartholomew 9,235 11,935 321 -- 1967 R,S Greenwood Lake First Creek Martin 12,780 29,800 800 15 1937 C,R,S Heritage Lake Clear Creek Putnam 5,000 9,800 330 -- 1971 R Lake Hardy Quick Creek Scott and 12,000 27,465 741 1970 C,R,S Jefferson Lake Lemon Beanblossom Creek Monroe and 13,300 45,700 1,650 64 1952 R,S Brown Lamb Lake Indian Creek Johnson and 7,250 13,000 95 1967 S Brown Monroe Lake Salt Creek Monroe and 182,250 861,080 10,750 430 1965 C,R Brown Morse Reservoir Cicero Creek Hamilton 25,380 49,300 1,375 214 1955 S Prairie Creek Reservoir Prairie Creek Delaware 22,000 36,670 1,275 17 1959 S Summit Lake Big Blue River Henry 15,800 25,550 700 10 1980 C,R,S Sweetwater Lake Sweetwater Creek Brown 9,500 11,700 275 -- 1966 R West Boggs Creek Lake West Boggs Creek Daviess and 8,148 18,438 622 1972 C,R Martin Williams Dam East Fork White River Lawrence 5,333 5,333 -- -- 1910 R,S Waste-Disposal Practices 45 1 Mgal/d of effluent to surface waters of the White A confined-feeding operation is any animal- River Basin (fig. 26). Primary and secondary feeding operation with 300 or more cattle, 600 wastewater-treatment plants eliminate solids and or more hogs or sheep, 30,000 or more poultry, reduce concentrations of constituents through a or any animal-feeding operation causing a water- variety of biological, filtration, chemical, and quality violation (Indiana Department of Environ settling processes. Semi-solid wastes from human mental Management, 1993). Animal wastes from sewage (commonly called sludge) that cannot be confined-feeding operations most commonly are discharged to nearby streams are disposed in land stored in earthen lagoons or concrete waste pits fills, as fertilizer to cropland, or by incineration. prior to disposal by land application. Waste-storage In the Indianapolis area, the White River has expe systems constructed after July 1,1993, are required rienced water-quality problems from extensive to have the capacity to store 120 days of animal organic loading in wastewater-treatment-plant waste. Many confined-feeding operations, how effluent (Shampine, 1975). In the early 1980's, ever, have less than 120-day storage capacity and, two tertiary treatment plants were installed near consequently, less flexibility to manage animal Indianapolis to reduce point-source contamination wastes. The IDEM encourages farmers to apply by sewage effluent. The tertiary treatment plants animal wastes to their fields twice a year prior significantly reduced biochemical-oxygen demand, to spring tillage and in the fall after harvest but fecal-coliform bacteria, and ammonia indicators before the ground freezes. These recommendations of sewage contamination. As a result, water quality are intended to decrease the potential for nutrient in White River improved (Crawford and Wang- runoff. Although the size of the waste-storage sness, 1991; Crawford and others, 1992). system and field and weather conditions are impor Combined-sewer overflows and urban run tant factors related to nutrient runoff, usually the off contribute pollutants to streams in the White most important factor is the operator's commit River Basin. Martin and Craig (1990) studied ment to effective animal-waste management dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the White (Dennis Lasiter, Indiana Department of Environ River downstream from Indianapolis during the mental Management, oral commun., 1995). Water summers of 1986 and 1987. Twelve periods of contamination from animal waste can occur if low dissolved-oxygen concentrations (less than State-mandated regulations for application are the Indiana water-quality standard of 4.0 mg/L) not followed, if retaining-pond integrity is compro were measured. These periods of low dissolved- mised, or if significant runoff events follow field oxygen concentrations lasted from less than 1 hour fertilizing. Contamination from animal wastes to almost 84 hours (median 5 hours), and the generally is indicated by elevated concentrations minimum concentrations were 1.0 to 3.9 mg/L of nutrients and bacteria and by decreased concen (median 2.8 mg/L). The low dissolved-oxygen trations of dissolved oxygen. concentrations occurred during periods of storm Landfills, including solid and hazardous- runoff (Martin and Craig, 1990). A study of waste sites, provide potential sources of Fall Creek in Indianapolis during the summer contamination to ground water and nearby streams. of 1987 concluded that increased concentrations Permitted landfills in Indiana are regulated by of ammonia, biochemical-oxygen demand, copper, the IDEM; as of 1997, more than 40 active solid- lead, zinc, and fecal coliform bacteria during storm waste landfills were in the White River Basin runoff were caused by combined-sewer overflows (John Guerrettaz, Indiana Department of Environ and urban runoff (Martin, 1995). mental Management, oral commun., 1997). 46 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' 39° 38°30' 30 40 MILES Gibson I____i 1 I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Mean daily discharge from municipal wastewater-treatment plants, 1991, in million gallons per day © 1 to 2.9 £ 3 to 9.9 ft 10 to 20 75 to 90 White River Basin boundary Figure 26. Location of municipal wastewater-treatment plants that discharged more than one million gallons of effluent per day in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1991. (Data from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, written commun., 1992.) Waste-Disposal Practices 47 Modified existing landfills and newly constructed 1 Mgal/d of used cooling water in 1991. Power- landfills are designed to prevent leachate from generation plants return most of the water they leaking into adjacent streams and underlying use to the stream, although minor amounts are aquifers by use of several mechanisms, including consumed during the process. The greatest effect clay and rubber liners and caps, gas-venting on water quality is the 10 to 15 °F increase in water systems, and leachate-collection systems. Leachate temperature that occurs between the intake and constituents from "leaky" landfills, such as waste- discharge points. A study during 1965 to 1970 at disposal sites that predate current construction the power-generation plant in Petersburg, Ind., practices and regulations, can be as varied as did not find any major effects on aquatic biota as a the waste. Fourteen sites in the basin were on result of elevated water temperature (Whitaker and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's others, 1973). All industries and power-generation Superfund National Priorities List in 1993; most plants discharging processed water into a river are of these sites are in Indianapolis, Bloomington, required by the IDEM to have a National Pollutant and Columbus. An additional 12 sites in the basin Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. were State cleanup sites (Indiana Department of The permit restricts the amount of pollutants that Environmental Management, 1994). In addition, can be discharged into a river and also the concen 47 sites in the basin were on the active U.S. En trations of these pollutants and constituents in the vironmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive effluent water. Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list in 1997. These sites are considered potential Super- Agricultural Practices fund or State cleanup sites. Numerous Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities Farming practices affect the concentrations are present in the basin. These facilities generate, of pesticides and nutrients in surface water and transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous ground water. The method of pesticide and fertil waste and are regulated by the IDEM to ensure izer application, the timing relative to climate that hazardous wastes do not leave the facility conditions, and the tillage practices can affect con through the ground or surface water. Four defense centrations of contaminants (U.S. Environmental facilities Fort Benjamin Harrison, Jefferson Protection Agency, 1988). For example, pesticides, Proving Grounds, the Naval Air Warfare Center, nutrients, and sediment may be concentrated and the Naval Surface Warfare Center are present in streams during high runoff periods following in the basin; all but the Naval Surface Warfare applications in late spring. Data describing the Center were closed in the mid-1990's and are distribution of nutrients and pesticides in surface being converted to civilian use. Each of the defense and ground water of the White River Basin were facilities has a variety of known or potentially compiled as part of the White River Basin study contaminated sites that, as of 1987, are being mon (Carter and others, 1995; Martin and others, 1996). itored or cleaned. The growing season in the White River Basin Various industries and power-generation is from early April to late September. The timing plants in the White River Basin use water in their of spring planting and fall harvest depends on soil, operations. The treated waste water or cooling crop, and weather conditions. Warm, dry condi water then is discharged to streams (fig. 27). Most tions enable early planting and harvesting, whereas of the industrial facilities discharging more than cool, wet conditions delay planting and harvesting. 1 Mgal/d are located in the Indianapolis Metropoli Traditionally, fields have been plowed and disked tan Area. Seven coal-fired power-generation plants in preparation for planting between mid March on the White River (fig. 27) discharged more than and late May (Indiana Agricultural Statistics 48 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 301 85° 40°30' - 40° 30' 39° 38°30' 0 10 20 30 40 MILES 1I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Mean daily discharge from industrial wastewater-treatment facilities (shown in black) and power-plant cooling-water discharge points (shown in gray), in million gallons per day O 1 to 9.9 o 10 to 99 O 100 to 160 300 to 310 White River Basin boundary Figure 27. Location of industrial wastewater-treatment plants and power-plant cooling-water discharge points that discharged more than one million gallons of effluent per day in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1991. (Data from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, written commun., 1992.) Agricultural Practices 49 Service, 1992). More recently, many farmers are Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992). The first adopting no-till farming or other conservation application is at planting (liquid nitrogen or urea) tillage practices. Pre-emergent herbicides typically or 1 to 2 weeks before planting (anhydrous ammo are applied to the soil immediately before planting nia). A second, larger application usually is made or during planting. Weed growth during the grow after the corn has germinated and is about 1 ft tall. ing season may be controlled further by the use of The second application typically occurs no later than mid-June because corn height limits move post-emergent herbicides. Insecticides are applied ment of machinery in the fields. Some farmers less frequently and typically later in the growing may apply nitrogen-based fertilizers after harvest, season. especially if they plan to grow winter wheat. Corn planting typically precedes soybean Fertilizers are applied more frequently and in planting, and soybean harvest typically precedes greater amounts per acre to corn than to soybeans corn harvest. In Indiana, most (80 percent) of the or wheat. Statistics described in this paragraph corn usually is planted between April 20 and are medians of annual estimates for 1980 to 1990. May 31, whereas most of the soybeans typically Statewide, Indiana farmers applied nitrogen-based are planted between May 4 and June 19 (Indiana fertilizers to 99 percent of the acres planted with Agricultural Statistics Service, 1992). In the corn, 30 percent of the acres planted with soy beans, and 95 percent of the acres planted with fall, most of the corn is harvested between Sep wheat. The median nitrogen application rate was tember 22 and November 17, whereas most of 148 Ib/acre for corn, 12 Ib/acre for soybeans, and the soybeans are harvested between September 19 75 Ib/acre for wheat. Phosphorus-based fertilizers and November 5 (Indiana Agricultural Statistics were applied to 96 percent of the corn, 38 percent Service, 1992). Following harvest, remaining plant of the soybeans, and 90 percent of the wheat. The residue typically is disked into the soil; if a no-till median phosphorus application rate was 33 Ib/acre practice is used, the residue is left to stabilize the for corn, 18 Ib/acre for soybeans, and 26 Ib/acre for soil surface. wheat. Potassium-based fertilizers were applied to 88 percent of the corn, 45 percent of the soybeans, A major source of nutrients in surface water and 88 percent of the wheat. The median potas and ground water is fertilizer applied to row crops. sium application rate was 91 Ib/acre for corn, Corn receives 90 percent of the nitrogen and 65 Ib/acre for soybeans, and 56 Ib/acre for wheat 76 percent of the phosphorus of the fertilizer (data from Indiana Crop and Livestock Reporting applied to fields planted in corn, soybeans, and Service, 1985; Indiana Agricultural Statistics Ser wheat. Soybeans receive 1 percent of the nitrogen vice, 1988; Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service, and 13 percent of the phosphorus. Wheat receives 1991). 8 percent of the nitrogen and 10 percent of the Most of the agricultural pesticides in the phosphorus. The types and quantities of fertilizers White River Basin are used on corn (75 percent used in the White River Basin and their times of of all agricultural pesticides) and soybeans (22 per application vary depending on the weather, soil cent) (Anderson and Gianessi, 1995). Of the fertility, tillage systems, crop types, crop rota pesticides applied, 92 percent are herbicides. The most common herbicides applied from 1992 tions, yield goals, and the personal preferences to 1994 atrazine, metolachlor, alachlor, butylate, of farmers. The most widely used nitrogen-based and cyanazine account for 72 percent of all fertilizers for corn are anhydrous ammonia, agricultural pesticides applied in the White River 28-percent-liquid nitrogen, and urea in the solid Basin. All five herbicides are used on corn; form (David Mengel, Purdue University, Depart alachlor and metolachlor also are used on soy ment of Agronomy, oral commun., 1993). Corn beans. Fonofos and chlorpyrifos were the most in Indiana receives an average of two applications commonly applied agricultural insecticides in the per year of nitrogen-based fertilizer (Indiana basin (table 5). 50 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Table 5. Estimated use of agricultural pesticides in the White River Basin, Indiana [1992-94 average usage, except for acetochlor which is 1994 usage. Data from Anderson and Gianessi, 1995, tables 3-6] Active ingredient Active ingredient Active ingredient applied, applied. applied, Herbicide in pounds Herbicide in pounds Insecticide in pounds 2,4-D 265,000 Nicosulfuron 5,100 Acephate 2,070 2,4-DB 6,370 Oryzalin 128 Azinphos-methyl 1,270 Acetochlor 125,000 Paraquat 35,900 Carbaryl 14,400 Acifluorfen 24,000 Pendimethalin 357,000 Carbofuran 44,500 Alachlor 1,250,000 Primisulfuron 3,020 Chlorpyrifos 154,000 Atrazine 2,220,000 Quizalofop-ethyl 3,140 Diazinon 1,020 Benefit! 587 Sethoxydim 16,300 Dicofol 25 Bensulide 1,520 Simazine 35,000 Dimethoate 5,080 Bentazon 143,000 Terbacil 48 Endosulfan 1,430 Bromoxynil 11,300 Thifensulfuron methyl 770 Esfenvalerate 230 Butylate 887,000 Tribenuron 110 Ethoprop 17 Chloramben 74 Trifluralin 102,000 Fonofos 163,000 Chlorimuron-ethyl 6,280 Formetanate hydrochloride 664 Clethodim 5,030 Malathion 4,090 Clomazone 32,000 Active ingredient Methamidophos 53 applied, Cyanazine 791,000 Fungicide in pounds Methomyl 121 DCPA 107 Anilazine 211 Methyl parathion 1,690 Dicamba 113,000 Benomyl 2,890 Oil 44,600 Dichlobenil 341 Captan 5,980 Oxamyl 557 EPTC 83,200 Chlorothalonil 57,900 Oxydemeton-methyl 11 Ethafluralin 38,200 Copper 6,650 Permethrin 11,000 Fenoxaprop-ethyl 7,070 Dinocap 177 Phorate 38,600 Fluazifop-butyl 14,100 Dodine 548 Phosmet 1,210 Fomesafen 18,800 Mancozeb 45,500 Propargite 1,950 Glyphosate 361,000 Maneb 16,800 Tefluthrin 6,800 Imazaquin 44,000 Metalaxyl 2,200 Terbufos 84,900 Imazethapyr 27,300 Metiram 6,240 Trimethacarb 18,900 Lactofen 10,100 Myclobutanil 180 Linuron 79,200 Propiconazole 647 Active ingredient Other applied, MCPA 4,970 Streptomycin 1,470 pesticides in pounds Metolachlor 2,070,000 Sulfur 21,000 Chloropicrin 1,400 Metribuzin 73,700 Thiophanate-methyl 1,320 Maleic hydrazide 3,510 Napropamide 1,150 Triadimefon 857 Methyl bromide 4,340 Naptalam 1,010 Vinclozolin 39 NAA 22 Agricultural Practices 51 Indiana farmers use a variety of tillage Information on the number and location of tile- systems that can be classified as conventional drain systems is not available, but agricultural tillage or conservation tillage. With conventional- experts expect that nearly all poorly drained tillage methods, fields are plowed and disked from farmlands in Indiana contain tile-drain systems one to three times each year, and 0 to 15 percent (Eileen Kladivko, Purdue University, Department of the previous year's crop residue is left on the of Agronomy, oral commun., 1993). Tiling land surface. Conventional tillage methods break can influence water quality by shortening the up the existing soil structure and leave the soil period of time that water is in contact with exposed and susceptible to erosion. Conservation- the subsurface and the associated processes that tillage systems (the most common include no-till, naturally decrease concentrations of nutrients and mulch-till, and ridge-till) are designed to reduce pesticides in ground water. Tile drainage can be soil erosion by minimizing soil disturbance, pro particularly problematic to surface-water quality if tecting the soil surface with growing plants or rainfall occurs immediately following application plant residues, and increasing surface roughness of fertilizers or pesticides. and permeability (MidWest Plan Service, 1992). Irrigation is not common in the White River These conservation methods may, however, Basin but is used in Bartholomew, Jackson, Knox, require greater quantities of pesticides than and Sullivan Counties (Indiana Department of are required with conventional tillage methods. Natural Resources, 1990). Irrigation in these Conservation tillage systems were used on counties is applied during the driest months of 58 percent of Indiana's farmlands in 1992, an the growing season, approximately 90 days per increase from 41 percent in 1990 (John Becker, year, and the amount of water applied ranges from Conservation Technology Information Center, 2 to 15 Mgal/d. Irrigation can affect water quality oral commun., 1993). if agricultural chemicals or other constituents are applied with the water or if the application changes Tillage practices can affect water quality by the predominant hydrology. influencing the amount of sediment that is eroded from fields and transported to the streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Nutrients and pesticides often Water Use are adsorbed to eroded sediments and can increase concentrations of these constituents in surface Water use in the White River Basin totaled water. In general, conservation-tillage systems 1,284 Mgal/d in 1995, of which 84.5 percent improve surface-water quality, compared to was surface water and 15.5 percent was ground conventional tillage systems, by increasing water (table 6). Total water withdrawals in infiltration and decreasing surface runoff and 1990 were highest for Marion, Hamilton, and evapotranspiration (MidWest Plan Service, 1992). Morgan Counties (Indiana Department of Natural Drainage on many poorly drained soils in the Resources, 1990). White River Basin has been improved for farming The major water use in the basin was by the installation of tile-drain systems. Water- cooling water for fossil-fuel thermoelectric power- saturated soils inhibit planting, harvest, and crop generation plants (about 63 percent of the total growth. Modern tile drains consist of perforated, water use). Seven power-generation plants with flexible tubes buried in trenches in fields beneath drew at least 1 Mgal/d of surface water from the plow zone. The tile drains transport water to the White River in 1991 (Indiana Department of nearby ditches or streams, quickly removing stand Environmental Management, written commun., ing water in fields, draining excess soil moisture 1991). Virtually all water withdrawn for cooling at in the unsaturated zone, draining seasonally high power-generation plants is returned to the stream. ground-water tables, thus "short circuiting" natural The East Fork White River does not have power- ground-water-flow systems in agricultural fields. generation-plant water intakes. 52 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Table 6. Water use in the White River Basin, Indiana, 1995 [Data compiled by Donald Arvin, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1997. Original data source is 1995 withdrawal data obtained from Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water] Withdrawals, Percent of in millions of gallons total water use Water-use category per day in basin Public-supply water 158 12.3 Self-supplied domestic 0 .0 Self-supplied commercial 9.62 .7 Grroundv Fossil-fuel thermoelectric power 3.74 .3 Mining .65 .1 Irrigation 4.93 .4 Livestock 7.04 .5 Total ground water 198 15.5 Public-supply water accounted for about Johnson, Madison, and Marion Counties (Indiana 21 percent of the total water use. Public-supply Department of Natural Resources, 1990). water is delivered to multiple users and is used Self-supplied domestic, self-supplied indus in the White River Basin principally for domestic, trial, and mining uses each had at least 3 percent commercial, and industrial uses. Almost 80 percent of total water use in the White River Basin in 1995. of the residents in the White River Basin obtained Self-supplied domestic water supplies were ob water from public supplies. Of the water with tained from private wells and provided water for drawn for public supply, 59 percent was surface approximately 500,000 residents in the basin water and 41 percent was ground water. Public- (Donald Arvin, written commun., 1997). Irriga supply water was the primary use of ground water tion water use was minor (1.5 percent of total use) in the basin. Although the basin is extensively in the basin. Ground water was the primary source farmed, irrigation is not necessary in most parts of of drinking water for approximately 56 percent of the basin because the soils tend to hold water for the population (Donald Arvin, U.S. Geological long periods of time. Irrigation is used to increase Survey, written commun., 1997). The largest production on some croplands on well-drained ground-water withdrawals in 1990 (5-15 Mgal/d) soils in the major flood plains in the south-central for public supply were in Bartholomew, Hamilton, and southwestern parts of the basin. Water Use 53 Hydrogeomorphic Regions of The land surface of the till plain is flat to the White River Basin gently rolling. Topographic features include several low end moraines, eskers, and shallow streams. Many areas contain shallow, closed One of the goals of the NAWQA Program depressions. Glacial deposits are 50 to 400 ft is to understand the natural and human factors thick but generally range from 100 to 200 ft thick. that affect water quality. To examine the effects Glacial deposits of the till plain consist of clay of natural factors on water quality, the White River loam till of Wisconsin age underlain by pre- Basin was subdivided into discrete "hydrogeo- Wisconsin-age till. Clay content in the till is morphic regions" that have distinct and relatively generally 30 to 40 percent. homogeneous natural characteristics (Gilliom and others, 1995). The natural factors include bedrock Till plain soils principally are mapped as and glacial geology, physiography, major soil asso "thin loess over loamy glacial till" and "clayey ciations, and hydrology. Three hydrogeomorphic glacial till" (fig. 9). The soils have developed in regions include areas where bedrock is exposed or 10 to 20 in. of loess overlying calcareous loam till near the land surface: the bedrock uplands, bedrock and form a patchwork of light- and dark-colored lowland and plain, and karst plain. The remaining areas. Dark, wet, organic-rich soils occur in swales three hydrogeomorphic regions are overlain with and depressions; on swells, the water table is lower glacial deposits and include the till plain, glacial and soils are lighter colored, more oxidized, and lowland, and fluvial deposits (fig. 28). lower in organic matter (Donald Franzmeier, Purdue University, Department of Agronomy, The effects of human influences on water written commun., 1993). Most surface soils are silt quality can be examined by investigating the loam, and the subsoil is slowly permeable in level relations between land use and water quality. areas or depressions. Nearly all soils on the till Agriculture, urban, and coal mining are the major plain are used for farming, predominantly for land uses likely to have detrimental effects on corn and soybeans. Till plain soils are among the water quality. The percentage of each land-use most productive in the world because they have and other selected characteristics of the hydro good water-holding capacity and they are young geomorphic regions are shown in table 7. and have not been leached of the nutrients provided by pulverized rock in the glacial material (Donald Franzmeier, written commun., 1993). Nearly all Till Plain poorly drained areas in the till plain region have been drained by buried agricultural field tiles The till plain hydrogeomorphic region is (William Hosteter, U.S. Natural Resources Conser the Tipton Till Plain physiographic unit (fig. 8). vation Service, oral commun., 1995). This region is the largest of the six hydrogeo morphic regions and is in the northern half of the Isolated lenses of sand and gravel occur in basin (fig. 28). The southernmost edge of the till the till and are the primary aquifers where glacial plain region approximates the farthest advance of deposits are thick. In areas of thinner deposits, Wisconsin-age glaciation; however, the southern the Silurian and Devonian aquifers commonly are boundary of the till plain is not at the limit of used for water supply. The fine-grained deposits Wisconsin-age glaciation. For example, Bartho of the till reduce the potential for contamination of lomew and Decatur Counties have some areas aquifers in this hydrogeomorphic region. Row-crop with till deposits as much as 100 ft thick but are corn and soybean agriculture is the dominant land grouped in the bedrock lowland and plain hydro use in the till plain. The till plain contains 59 per geomorphic region because the topography is cent of the population in the White River Basin and more representative of this bedrock region than includes the urban areas of Muncie, Anderson, and of the till plain. Indianapolis. 54 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana 87°30' 87° 30' 86° 30' 85° 40°301 - 40° Parke BO 38°30' 10 20 30 40 MILES I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data. 1:100.000,1983 Albers Equal-Area projection Standard parallels 29°30' and 45°30', central meridian -86° EXPLANATION Hydrogeomorphic regions i i Till plain i i Bedrock uplands D Glacial lowland H Bedrock lowland and plain H Karst plain U Fluvial deposits - White River Basin boundary Figure 28. Hydrogeomorphic regions used to evaluate the effects of natural factors on water quality in the White River Basin, Indiana. Till Plain 55 Table 7. Characteristics of hydrogeomorphic regions in the White River Basin, Indiana [Population data from U.S. Department of Commerce (1992); land-use data from U.S. Geological Survey (1990) as modified by Hitt (1994); Hydrogeomorphic region Bedrock lowland Fluvial White River Characteristic Till plain Glacial lowland Bedrock uplands Karst plain and plain deposits Basin Estimated population 1,231,600 83,300 119,100 136,900 139,000 364,200 2,074,100 (1990) Population density 329 71 51 214 74 229 183 (people/mi2) Area (mi2) 3,740 1,170 2,328 639 1,885 1,587 11,349 Agriculture 85.4 82.2 27.3 61.7 76.9 77.9 69.3 | Urban 11.2 4.2 2.9 9.1 4.5 8.6 7.2 T3e ~ Forest 2.9 11.7 68.3 28.4 17.9 10.9 22.3 2 Water and o- wetlands .3 .6 1.2 .2 .3 1.9 .7 Barren2 .2 1.3 .2 .5 .3 .6 .4 Slowly Well-drained Thin, acidic, Strongly Slowly to Permeable permeable to slowly slowly acidic, very slowly loam - Typical silt loam permeable permeable, highly permeable soil silt loam stony loam erosive, silt loam characteristics silt loam Silurian and Minor Mississippian Mississip Silurian and Glacio- Devonian aquifers carbonate pian Devonian fluvial carbonate (sandstone; and clastic carbonate carbonate aquifers bedrock; some shale, bedrock; bedrock bedrock till aquifers coal, and Pennsyl- Commonly limestone vanian used aquifers) sandstone aquifers Big Blue R. East Fork East Fork East Fork Clifty Cr. All large Big Walnut Cr. White R. White R. White R. Driftwood R. streams Cicero Cr. EelR. EelR. Lost R. East Fork Driftwood R. west fk. of Lost R. Salt Cr. White R. Eagle Cr. White R. Muscatatuck R. Flatrock R. Fall Cr. Salt Cr. Graham Cr. Large streams Mill Cr. Muscatatuck R. (greater than Sugar Cr. Sand Cr. 200 mi2 west fk. of Vernon Fk. drainage White R. area) White Lick Cr. 'Some regions do not total 100 percent due to rounding. 2Barren land includes strip mines, quarries, and exposed bedrock. 56 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Glacial Lowland bedrock (shale, siltstone, coal, and limestone). Surface coal mining occurs only in this region of The glacial lowland hydrogeomorphic region, the basin, but row-crop corn and soybean agricul in the southwestern part of the basin (fig. 28), is ture is the dominant land use. the same as the Wabash Lowland physiographic unit (fig. 8). Bedrock underlying the glacial low Bedrock Uplands land region includes Pennsylvanian coal, shale, sandstone, and limestone. The bedrock is overlain The bedrock uplands hydrogeomorphic by locally thick deposits of Illinoian-age till, loess, region (fig. 28) comprises the Crawford Upland glacial lake deposits (typically clay), and sand and Norman Upland physiographic units (fig. 8). dunes. Extensive, sediment-filled valleys are The bedrock uplands hydrogeomorphic region, common. Landforms in the glacial lowland are in the south-central part of the basin, is separated characterized by broad, gently sloping valleys with into two parts by the karst plain region.The eastern smooth, rounded hills. Uplands are hilly or gently part of the bedrock uplands consists of resistant rolling, and relief is moderate. siltstone, sandstone, and shale of the Borden Group Most glacial lowland soils have developed (early to middle Mississippian age). The western in thick loess deposits or in sand dunes (fig. 9). part consists of alternating sandstones, shales, and The well-drained, sand-dune soils form a narrow limestones from the Chester Series (late Mississip pian age), unconformably overlain by sandstones band along the eastern margin of the White River. and mudstones of the Mansfield Formation (early Sand-dune soils have a low organic-matter content, Pennsylvanian age). The bedrock uplands have low fertility, and low water-holding capacity. not been glaciated except for a thin mantle of The surface texture is silt loam and the subsoil pre-Wisconsin-age till that covers the northern is permeable. Soils that have formed in the 5- to most part. 25-ft-thick loess deposits are the most extensive in the glacial lowland (Ulrich, 1966). These soils are Differential erosion of lithologic units has erosive, moderately to very acidic, and often have produced a high relief hill and valley landscape fragipans. Upland soils are low in organic matter, that characterizes the bedrock uplands. The highly and lowland soils require drainage. The surface dissected topography of the bedrock uplands soils are silt loam, and the subsoils are moderately exhibits narrow, flat-topped ridges; steeply sloping to slowly permeable. Subsoil permeability is less hillsides; and deep, V-shaped valleys. Local relief is as much as 300 ft, and flood plains are narrow or in the northern part of the region where thinner absent. Soils, mapped as discontinuous loess over deposits of loess cover the pre-Wisconsin-age weathered shale and limestone (fig. 9) are thin, till plain (Bushnell, 1944). In areas of the region acidic, and poorly suited for agriculture. The ridge- where sandy deposits are common, like Knox tops have a thin layer of silt and contain fragipans and Sullivan Counties, some farmers require irriga that have developed in most soils with less than tion to maintain adequate soil moisture. In other 12-percent slopes (Donald Franzmeier, written areas of the glacial lowland, drainage is poor commun., 1993). The soil-surface texture is and drainage ditches or tile drains are common. In stony loam, and the subsoil is slowly permeable cropland areas susceptible to soil erosion because (Bushnell, 1944). of moderate relief, tile drains may have riser pipes that collect ponded surface water and transport it Ground-water supplies are derived primarily to nearby streams or ditches. from bedrock aquifers in the bedrock uplands. Supplies typically are poor and well yields are Ground-water supplies typically come from sporadic. Aquifer types include minor aquifers Pennsylvanian sandstone aquifers that can be consisting of Mississippian-age clastic bedrock as deep as 300 ft. Lesser-used aquifers include (sandstone, fractured shale and siltstone, and minor unconsolidated sand and other Pennsylvanian limestone), Mississippian carbonates that underlie Glacial Lowland 57 clastic bedrock in the western part of the bedrock Karst plain soils (discontinuous loess over uplands, and the Pennsylvanian Mansfield Forma weathered limestone in fig. 9) have developed in tion in the far western part of the uplands (Fenelon a thin, discontinuous layer of loess and a base-rich and Greeman, 1994). residuum of reddish clay called "terra rosa." Terra rosa is speculated to be residuum produced by Most (68 percent) of the land is forested, erosion of the limestone formations. In many areas, although pasture and row crops commonly occur limestone underlies the slowly permeable red-clay in the valleys and on some of the broader hilltops. residuum at a depth of 5 or 10 ft (Ulrich, 1966). The bedrock uplands are not suited for intensive In the Lost River Basin, the thickness of the terra agriculture, and large tracts of land are in State rosa averages 17 ft in the eastern part of the basin and National Forests; the population is sparse. and 34 ft in the western part (Ruhe and Olson, 1980). Soils are strongly acidic and low in organic matter and nutrients (Ulrich, 1966). The soils Karst Plain are silt loams and have developed fragipans on flat areas. Most soils in the region are erosive The karst plain hydrogeomorphic region (Donald Franzmeier, written commun., 1993). is the Mitchell Plain physiographic unit (fig. 8), located in the south-central part of the basin Most ground water withdrawn from the karst between the two areas that compose the bedrock region comes from the Mississippian carbonate uplands region (fig. 28). The karst plain is a aquifers, which can have variable yields that small area that covers less than 6 percent of the are typically 1 to 50 gallons per minute (Fenelon White River Basin. It is a moderately sloping, and Greeman, 1994). The numerous sinkholes and undulating upland area of low relief that formed solution features in the karst plain make aquifers from soluble Mississippian limestone. Rock forma in this hydrogeomorphic region particularly sus tions of the Blue River Group (particularly the ceptible to contamination. Pasture and row crops Paoli, Ste. Genevieve, and St. Louis Limestones) are the dominant land uses throughout the karst are susceptible to development of karst features. plain region. Quarrying of limestone is important Formations of the Blue River Group consist of to the local economy; however, limestone quarries soluble minerals and contain numerous fractures are not areally extensive. For example, in Monroe and joints that easily can be widened by natural County, where quarrying is economically signifi dissolution. The Salem Formation, positioned cant, 125 quarries occupy only 550 acres of land directly beneath the Blue River Group, contains (Hartke and Gray, 1989). About one half the popu fewer karst features because the rock is a less lation in the karst plain lives in Bloomington, the pure limestone and, therefore, less susceptible to third largest city in the basin. dissolution. Like the bedrock uplands region, only the northernmost part of the karst plain has been Bedrock Lowland and Plain glaciated. The karst plain, particularly the western half The bedrock lowland and plain hydrogeomor of the region, contains caves, numerous sinkholes, phic region (fig. 28) comprises the Muscatatuck and solution features and is characterized by short, Regional Slope and the Scottsburg Lowland physi discontinuous surface streams that drain to sink ographic units (fig. 8). These units are contiguous holes. More than 1,000 sinkholes were counted in and are in the southeastern part of the basin. r\ 1 mi in the center of this region (Schneider, 1966). The Muscatatuck Regional Slope is a westward- Shapes of the sinkholes vary, but a typical sinkhole dipping plain formed from resistant carbonate is funnel-shaped in cross section 10 to 30 ft deep rocks of Silurian and Devonian ages. The Scotts and 150 ft in diameter. burg Lowland is formed from soft shales of 58 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Devonian and Mississippian ages. The entire The fluvial deposits primarily are sand and gravel extent of the bedrock lowland and plain region and were deposited as valley fill as the glaciers has been covered by pre-Wisconsin-age till or melted; some of the surficial sediments are recent lake deposits, but the northern third also has been alluvium composed of sand, silt, and clay. In gen covered by Wisconsin-age till. Average thickness eral, the fluvial deposits region corresponds to the of glacial till is 20 to 25 ft but, in places, it is areas of flood plains. The width of fluvial deposits no more than 5 to 10 ft thick (Schneider, 1966). is less than 0.1 to 0.5 mi along streams having Upland areas of the bedrock lowland and plain drainage areas less than 100 mi",^ and 2 to 6 mi region are broad and nearly flat. Streams cut deep along major rivers such as the White River and valleys through the upland till and expose bedrock. East Fork White River. Fluvial deposits are most Lowland areas of the region are located where extensive in Marion County (near Indianapolis); highly erodible shale of late Devonian and early in Bartholomew and Jackson Counties (near Mississippian ages outcrops (Schneider, 1966). Columbus and Seymour); and in the south Principal soils in the northern parts of the region western part of the basin where the White River are thin or moderately thick loess over loamy flows through Knox, Daviess, Pike, and Gibson glacial till; principal soils in the southern part Counties. are moderately thick loess over weathered glacial till or lacustrine deposits (fig. 9). Most soils have Soils of the fluvial deposits region are devel developed in about 3 ft of loess and are either oped in alluvial and outwash deposits (fig. 9) poorly drained or highly erosive (Ulrich, 1966). that have a wide variety of characteristics and Surface soils are primarily silt loam, and the sub properties. In general, fine-textured material at the soil is slowly to very slowly permeable. Many of surface overlies coarse material at depth. Surface- the soils have fragipans and require drainage for soil textures generally are loams, and the subsoils farming. Locating suitable outlets for tiles makes are permeable. These soils are among the most subsurface drainage difficult; when subsurface productive in Indiana but, where the water table drainage is used, tiles tend to fill with silt. is deep, irrigation is required (Donald Franzmeier, Ground-water supplies typically are obtained written commun., 1993). from the Silurian and Devonian carbonate bedrock, The fluvial deposits region contains the most which is a dependable aquifer except in the far productive and extensively used aquifers in the eastern part of the region where supplies are spo White River Basin. Most large cities near fluvial radic (Fenelon and Greeman, 1994). The New deposits use the aquifers for public supplies. In Albany Shale (Devonian age), which underlies Bartholomew, Jackson, and Knox Counties, fluvial the western part of the bedrock lowland and plain, deposits also are used to supply water for irrigation contains radioactive minerals and high concentra agriculture. Fluvial deposits crossing the bedrock tions of trace elements. Ground-water samples uplands and karst plain regions are particularly from wells affected by the New Albany Shale important as aquifers for residents in these areas may show undesirable concentrations of radon because productive and reliable bedrock aquifers and trace elements. Row-crop agriculture is the can be difficult to locate. dominant land use throughout the bedrock lowland and plain region. Although parts of Muncie, Anderson, Indianapolis, Columbus, and many small cities and towns are in this region, row-crop corn and Fluvial Deposits soybean agriculture is the dominant land use. The fluvial deposits region was used in the White River The fluvial deposits hydrogeomorphic region Basin study only to examine factors affecting consists of a narrow band of river-lain deposits ground-water quality because the drainage basins beneath and along most major rivers and streams of streams and rivers do not include substantial throughout the White River Basin (fig. 28). amounts of this hydrogeomorphic region. Fluvial Deposits 59 Summary relief of the landscape. Streams in the northern part of the basin drain relatively flat areas of The White River Basin encompasses thick glacial deposits. The flat landscape promotes 11,349 mr in central and southern Indiana. Water ponding and infiltration of rainfall that moderates quality in the basin is affected by natural factors surface runoff and peak flows; the thick glacial such as climate, geology, physiography, soils, deposits contain aquifers that discharge to streams and hydrology and by human influences such as and contribute to sustained base flow. Streams in land use, waste-disposal practices, agricultural the southern part of the basin generally drain more practices, and water use. Although the quality of steeply sloping areas that lack glacial deposits or ground water and surface water is suitable for have thin deposits. Steep slopes promote surface most uses, water quality can be degraded by point runoff. Because the water-yielding capacity of and non-point sources of contamination. bedrock and thin glacial deposits is poor, the bed Interrelated natural factors help determine rock and thin glacial deposits contribute little to the water quality in the White River Basin. The base flow. basin has a humid continental climate, character Surface-water quality is determined partly ized by well-defined winter and summer seasons. by local geology. In the southern part of the Rainfall in the cooler months is generally of long basin, bedrock upland areas are dominated by duration and mild intensity, whereas rainfall in late spring and summer tends to be of shorter duration non-carbonate bedrock, thin soils, and high runoff- and higher intensity. Geologic features in the White rainfall ratios. Streamwater fed by ground water River Basin include glaciated and nonglaciated in these areas has small chemical concentrations. areas; a region of karst geomorphology that is Conversely, in the northern part of the basin where characterized by caves and sinkholes; and a thick, glacial deposits are thick and in the southwestern sedimentary bedrock sequence underlying the part of the basin where loess deposits are thick, entire basin. Unconsolidated glacial deposits of ground water has long periods of time to react clay, silt, sand and gravel cover more than 60 per with soils and aquifers and to acquire substantial cent of the basin. In the northern part of the basin, quantities of dissolved constituents. Ground-water unconsolidated deposits may be 400 ft thick but, in seepage into streams in the till plain and glacial the southern part of the basin, glacial deposits are lowland, as a result, has higher concentrations limited to thin veneers of windblown silt. Bedrock of most constituents than ground water in the includes Paleozoic-age carbonates (limestone and unglaciated parts of the basin. dolomite), sandstones, siltstones, shales, and coals. Physiography in the basin is defined by a glacial Surface-water-quality problems in the White till plain in the northern part of the basin and a River Basin are related primarily to agriculture, series of bedrock lowlands, uplands, and plains urbanization, industrialization, and mineral- in the southern part of the basin. Soils developed resource extraction. In the East Fork White River in unconsolidated glacial deposits are typically Basin, 54 percent of the stream miles assessed by fertile, naturally or artificially well drained, and the Indiana Department of Environmental Manage ment fully supported aquatic-life uses, but none farmed. Soils in the unglaciated south-central part of the assessed stream miles fully supported full- of the basin are thin, have low fertility, and are best body-contact recreation. In the remainder of the suited for forest or pasture. White River Basin, 82 percent of the assessed Difference in streamflow characteristics stream miles fully supported aquatic-life uses, between the northern and southern parts of the but only 5 percent fully supported full-body- basin are related to natural characteristics that contact recreation. A primary cause of streams include the thickness and water-yielding capacity failing to fully support aquatic-life uses were poly- of glacial deposits, the water-yielding capacity of chlorinated biphenyls or chlordane in fish tissue bedrock, permeability of soils, and the slope and that resulted in fish-consumption advisories. 60 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana Bacterial contamination of stream water was a planted for corn, 35 percent were planted for soy primary cause of streams failing to support full- beans, 4 percent were planted for winter wheat, body-contact recreation. Other constituents and 6 percent were harvested for hay. Other land that have affected water quality in the basin are uses are forest (22 percent), urban and residential ammonia, metals, suspended solids, biochemical- (7 percent), water and wetlands (0.7 percent), and oxygen demand, and low concentrations of active and abandoned quarries and coal mines dissolved oxygen. (0.4 percent). Forested areas are primarily in the Two general types of aquifers occur in the south-central part of the basin in bedrock upland White River Basin unconsolidated aquifers areas. Most of the large urban centers in the basin associated with glacial deposits and bedrock are located in the northern part of the basin and aquifers. The primary unconsolidated aquifers include Indianapolis, Muncie, and Anderson. are glaciofluvial aquifers and till aquifers. Un Coal mines are an important industry in the south consolidated aquifers are common in the northern western part of the basin. part of the basin. The principal bedrock aquifers Water use in the White River Basin totaled are Silurian-Devonian carbonate aquifers and Mississippian carbonate aquifers. Ground-water 1,284 Mgal/d in 1995, of which about 85 percent quality and quantity vary as a result of many was surface water and 15 percent was ground factors such as aquifer composition, aquifer depth, water. Despite the predominant use of surface ground-water-flow regime, and surficial land use. water in the basin, ground water was the primary source of drinking water for approximately 56 per The quantity and quality of the ground water cent of the population. in the White River Basin, however, meet the needs of most users. Withdrawal rates range from 10 to To examine the effects of natural factors 600 gal/min in the bedrock aquifers to as much on water quality, the White River Basin was sub as 2,000 gal/min in thick glaciofluvial deposits. divided into discrete "hydrogeomorphic regions" Ground water in Indiana is generally very hard that have distinct and relatively homogeneous 100 to 600 mg/L with the highest concentrations natural characteristics. The natural characteristics in bedrock aquifers. Iron and sulfate concentrations include bedrock and glacial geology, physiography, are also high in many aquifers. hydrology, and major soil associations. Three Human activities affect water quality most hydrogeomorphic regions include areas where in areas of the White River Basin where urban bedrock is exposed or near the land surface: the and agricultural land uses are predominant. bedrock uplands, bedrock lowland and plain, and Major non-point sources of contamination include karst plain. The remaining three hydrogeomorphic (1) pesticide and nutrient applications related to regions are overlain with glacial deposits and farming; (2) siltation related to farming, grazing, include the till plain, glacial lowland, and fluvial mining, and construction; and (3) urban runoff. deposits. The till plain region is the largest, most Major point sources of contamination include populated, and most extensively farmed of the six outfalls related to wastewater-treatment plants, hydrogeomorphic regions. The bedrock uplands is industrial discharges, releases from power- the least densely populated and the most forested generation-plant cooling tanks, combined-sewer of the regions. The karst plain is the smallest of the overflows, and landfills. regions and is unique because of many caves, sink Agriculture is the principal land use in the holes, and disappearing streams. The fluvial White River Basin. Approximately 70 percent of region, located along most of the major streams the basin is used for agriculture. Of the 3.6 million and rivers throughout the basin, is densely popu acres of farmland in the basin, 43 percent were lated and heavily farmed. Summary 61 References Cited ___1969, Acid mine-drainage problem of the Patoka River watershed, southwestern Indiana: Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University, Water Aber, J.S., Nadelhoffer, K.J., Steadier, P., and Resources Research Center Report of Investiga Melillo, J. M., 1989, Nitrogen saturation in tions no. 4, 173 p. northern forest ecosystems: Bioscience, v. 39, no. 6, p. 378-386. Crawford, C.G., and Wangsness, D.J., 1991, Effects of advanced wastewater treatment on the quality Anderson, I.E., and Gianessi, L.P., 1995, Pesticide of White River, Indiana: Water Resources Bulletin, use in the White River Basin: Washington, D.C., v. 27, no. 5, p. 769-779. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 99 p. Crawford, C.G., Wangsness, D.J., and Martin, J.D., 1992, Recovery of benthic-invertebrate communi Arihood, L.D., 1982, Ground-water resources of the White River Basin, Hamilton and Tipton Counties, ties in the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources USA, following implementation of advanced Investigations Report 82-48, 69 p. treatment of municipal wastewater: Archives of Hydrobiologie, v. 126, no. 1, p. 67-84. Arihood, L.D. and Glatfelter, D.R., 1986, Method for estimating low-flow characteristics of ungaged Crompton, E.J. and Graves, T., 1987, Indiana water streams in Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey supply and use, in U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 86-323, 32 p. National water summary 1987 Hydrologic events and water supply and use: U.S. Geological Survey Arvin, D.V., 1989, Statistical summary of streamflow Water-Supply Paper 2350, p. 243-250. data for Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-62, 964 p. Dawson, T.A., 1971, Map of Indiana showing structure on top of Trenton Limestone: Bloomington, Ind., Banaszak, K.J., 1988, Indiana ground-water quality, Indiana Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map 17, in U.S. Geological Survey, National water scale 1:500,000. summary 1986 Hydrologic events and ground- water Quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Fenelon, J.M., and Greeman, T.K., 1994, East Fork Supply Paper 2325, p. 245-250. White River Basin, in Fenelon, J.M., Bobay, K.E., and others, Hydrogeologic atlas of aquifers in Bobay, K.E., 1988, Ground-water flow and quality Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources beneath sewage-sludge lagoons, and a comparison with the ground-water quality beneath a sludge- Investigations Report 92-4142, p. 135-156. amended landfill, Marion County, Indiana: Forbes, Jeffrey, 1984, Occurrence and consequences U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources of naturally soft groundwater in Indiana, in Investigations Report 88-4175, 74 p. Martin, J.D., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Bushnell, T.M., 1944, The story of Indiana soils: Water Resources Symposium, June 20-22, 1984: Lafayette, Ind., Purdue University Agricultural Indianapolis, Indiana Water Resources Association, Experiment Station Special Circular 1, 52 p. p. 111-121. Carter, D.S., Lydy, M.J., and Crawford, C.G., 1995, Forstall, R.L., ed., 1996, Population of states and Water-quality assessment of the White River Basin, counties in the United States, 1790-1990: Indiana Analysis of selected information on U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the pesticides, 1972-92: U.S. Geological Survey Census, 225 p. Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4024, Fowler, K.K., 1992, Description and effects of 1988 60 p. drought on ground-water levels, streamflow, and Clark, G.D., ed., 1980, The Indiana water resource reservoir levels in Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Availability, uses, and needs: Indianapolis, Indiana Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4100, Department of Natural Resources, 508 p. 91 p. Corbett, D.M., 1965, Water supplied by coal surface Fowler, K.K., and Wilson, J.T., 1996, Low-flow mines, Pike County, Indiana: Bloomington, Ind., characteristics of Indiana streams: U.S. Geological Indiana University, Water Resources Research Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report Center Report of Investigations no. 1, 67 p. 96-4128, 313 p. 62 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana References Cited Continued Gray, H.H., Ault, C.H., and Keller, S.J., 1987, Bedrock geologic map of Indiana: Bloomington, Ind., Indiana Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map 48, Franzmeier, D.P., Steinhardt, G.C., Sinclair, H.R., Jr., scale 1:500,000. and Hosteler, W.D., [1989], Taxonomic and environmental factor keys to the soils of Indiana: Gregory, K.J., and Walling, D.E., 1973, Drainage basin West Lafayette, Ind., Purdue University Coopera form and process: New York, John Wiley and tive Extension Service, 20 p. Sons, 458 p. Gillies, D.C., 1976, Availability of ground water near Grennfelt, P. and Jultberg, H., 1986, Effects of nitrogen Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana: U.S. Geo deposition on the acidification of terrestrial and logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations aquatic ecosystems: Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, Report 76-46, 27 p. v. 30, p. 945-963. Gilliom, R.J., Alley, W.M., and Gurtz, M.E., 1995, Grover, R., 1988, Nature, transport and fate of airborne Design of the National Water-Quality Assess residues, in Grover, R., and Cessna, A.J., eds., ment Program Occurrence and distribution of Environmental Chemistry of Herbicides, v. 2: water-quality conditions: U.S. Geological Survey Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, p. 89-117. Circular 1112, 33 p. Gutschick, R.C., 1966, Bedrock geology, in Lindsey, Glatfelter, D.R., 1984, Techniques for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods on streams in A.A., ed., Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Indiana Academy of Science, p. 1-20. Investigations Report 84-4134, 110 p. Hartke, E.J. and Gray, H.H., 1989, Geology for environ Glatfelter, D.R., and Butch, G.K., 1994, Instrumen mental planning in Monroe County, Indiana: tation, methods of flood-data collection and Bloomington, Ind., Indiana Geological Survey transmission, and evaluation of streamflow-gaging Special Report 47, 38 p. network in Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Hasenmueller, N.R. and Nauth, D.E., 1988, Radon: Resources Investigations Report 91-4051, 75 p. Indianapolis, Indiana Department of Natural Glatfelter, D.R., and Newman, I.E., 1991, Indiana Resources Information Circular, v. 1, no. 2, 4 p. floods and droughts, in U.S. Geological Survey, National water summary 1988-89 Hydrologic Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical events and floods and droughts: U.S. Geological methods in water resources: Amsterdam, Elsevier, Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, p. 271-278. 522 p. Gold, R.L., and Wolcott, S.W, 1980, Floods in Indiana, Hirsch, R.M., Alley, W.M., and Wilber, W.G., 1988, June-August 1979: U.S. Geological Survey Open- Concepts for a National Water-Quality Assessment File Report 80-1204, 64 p. Program: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1021, 42 p. Goolsby, D.A., Coupe, PH., and Markovchick, D.J., 1991, Distribution of selected herbicides and Hitt, K.J., 1994, Refining 1970's land-use data with nitrate in the Mississippi River and its major tribu 1990 population data to indicate new residential taries, April through June 1991: U.S. Geological development: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report Resources Investigations Report 94-4250, 14 p. 91-4163, 35 p. Hoggatt, R.E., 1975, Drainage areas of Indiana streams: Governor's Soil Resources Study Commission, 1984, U.S. Geological Survey Report, 231 p. Indiana's erosion and sedimentation situation: Indianapolis, Governor's Soil Resources Study Hoover, M.E., and Durbin, J.M., 1994, White River Commission, 29 p. Basin, in Fenelon, J.M., Bobay, K.E., and others, Gray, H.H., 1983, Map of Indiana showing thickness Hydrogeologic atlas of aquifers in Indiana: of unconsolidated deposits: Bloomington, Ind., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investi Indiana Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 38, gations Report 92-4142, p. 113-133. scale 1:500,000. Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service, 1988, Indiana ___1989, Quaternary geologic map of Indiana: agricultural statistics 1987: West Lafayette, Ind., Bloomington, Ind., Indiana Geological Survey Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service Report Miscellaneous Map 49, scale 1:500,000. no. A 88-1, 117 p. References Cited 63 References Cited Continued Johnson, D.W, VanMiegroet, H., Lindberg, S.E., Todd, D.E., and Harrison, R. B., 1991, Nutrient cycling in red spruce forests of the Great Smoky .1991, Indiana agricultural statistics 1990: Mountains: Canadian Journal of Forest Research, West Lafayette, Ind., Indiana Agricultural Statistics v. 21, p. 769-878. Service Report no. A 91-1, 142 p. Langbein, W.B., and Iseri, K.T., 1960, General surface- ___1992, Indiana agricultural statistics 1991: water techniques; general introduction and West Lafayette, Ind., Indiana Agricultural Statistics hydrologic definitions, manual of hydrology; pt. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Service Report no. A 92-1, 144 p. Paper 1541-A, 29 p. Indiana Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 1985, Lapham, W.W., 1981, Ground-water resources of Annual crop and livestock summary 1984: the White River Basin, Madison County, Indiana: West Lafayette, Ind., Indiana Crop and Livestock U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investi Reporting Service Report no. A 85-1, 144 p. gations Report 81-35, 112 p. Indiana Department of Environmental Manage Lapham, W.W., and Arihood, L.D., 1984, Ground-water ment, 1986-91, Indiana water quality, Monitoring resources of the White River Basin, Randolph site records Rivers and streams: Indianapolis, County, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey, Water- Indiana Department of Environmental Manage Resources Investigations Report 83-4267, 86 p. ment, Office of Water Management, published Leahy, P.P., Rosenshein, J.S., and Knopman, D.S., 1990, annually. Implementation plan for the National Water- Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological ___1988, Indiana 305 (b) report, 1986-87: Indian Survey Open-File Report 90-174, 10 p. apolis, Indiana Department of Environmental Leininger, R.K., 1981, Inorganic geochemistry, in Management, Office of Water Management, 281 p. Hasenmueller, N.R., and Woodard, G.S., eds., ___1990, Indiana 305 (b) report, 1988-89: Indian Studies of the New Albany Shale (Devonian and apolis, Indiana Department of Environmental Mississippian) and equivalent strata in Indiana: Management, Office of Water Management, 297 p. Bloomington, Ind., Indiana Geological Survey, prepared for United States Department of Energy, ___1993, Indiana's confined feeding control law Morgantown Energy Technology Center, Morgan- Proposed recommendations for compliance: town, WVa., contract No. DE-AC 21-76MC Indianapolis, Indiana Department of Environmen 05204, p. 53-61. tal Management, Office of Water Management, Majewski, M.S., and Capel, P.D., 1995, Pesticides in the 14 p. atmosphere Distribution, trends, and governing ___1994, Indiana 305 (b) report, 1992-93: Indian factors: Chelsea, Mich., Ann Arbor Press, 214 p. apolis, Indiana Department of Environmental Malott, C.A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana, Management, Office of Water Management, 486 p. in Handbook of Indiana geology, Part 2: Indiana Department of Conservation Publication 21, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990, p. 59-256. Indiana's water use 1990: Indianapolis, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Martin, J.D., 1995, Effects of combined-sewer over Water, 10 p. flows and urban runoff on the water quality of Fall Creek, Indianapolis, Indiana: U.S. Geological Indiana Farm Bureau Inc., 1994, Nitrate and pesticides Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report in private wells of Indiana Part 1 State Summary: 94-4066, 92 p. Indianapolis, Indiana Farm Bureau Inc., 38 p. Martin, J.D., and Craig, R.A., 1990, Effects of storm Indiana State Board of Health, 1981-85, Water quality runoff on water quality in the White River and Fall monitoring Rivers and streams: Indianapolis, Creek, Indianapolis, Indiana, June through October 1986 and 1987: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Indiana State Board of Health, Division of Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4185, 114 p. Pollution Control, published annually. Martin, J.D. and Crawford, C.G., 1987, Statistical Jacques, D.V. and Crawford, C.G., 1991, National analysis of surface-water-quality data in and near Water-Quality Assessment Program White the coal-mining region of southwestern Indiana, River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 1957-80: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Report 91-169, 2 p. Paper 2291,92 p. 64 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana References Cited Continued Ruhe, R.V., and Olson, C.G., 1980, The origin of terra rossa in the karst of southern Indiana, reprinted from Field trips 1980, 14th annual meeting, North- Martin, J.D., Crawford, C.G., Frey, J.W., and Hodgkins, Central Section, Geological Society of America: G.A., 1996, Water-quality assessment of the Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University, Water White River Basin, Indiana Analysis of Resources Research Center, p. 84-122. selected information on nutrients, 1980-92: Rupp, R.A., 1991, Structure and isopach maps of the U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Paleozoic rocks of Indiana: Bloomington, Ind., Investigations Report 96-4192, 91 p. Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 48, Martin, J.D., Duwelius, R.F., and Crawford, C.G., 1990, 106 p. Effects of surface coal mining and reclamation Schneider, A.F., 1966, Physiography, in Lindsey, A.A., on the geohydrology of six small watersheds in ed., Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, west-central Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Indiana Academy of Science, p. 45-56. Water-Supply Paper 2368, 71 p. Scribner, E.A., Goolsby, E.M., Thurman, M.T., Meyer, Meyer, William, Reussow, J.P., and Gillies, D.C., 1975, M.T., and Battaglin, W.A., 1996, Concentrations Availability of ground water in Marion County, of selected herbicides, herbicide metabolites, and Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File nutrients in outflow from selected midwestern reservoirs, April 1992 through September 1993: Report 75-312, 87 p. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-393, MidWest Plan Service, 1992, Conservation tillage 128 p. systems and management Crop residue manage Shampine, W.J., 1975, A river-quality assessment of the ment with no-till, ridge-till, mulch-till: Ames, upper White River, Indiana: U.S. Geological Sur Iowa, MidWest Plan Service MWPS-45, 140 p. vey Water-Resources Investigations Report 75-10, National Weather Service, 1997, Historical climate 68 p. summaries for Indiana: Internet Universal ___1977, Indiana stream-temperature characteristics: Resource Locator http://www.nws.noaa.gov. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investi Peters, J.G., 1981, Effects of surface mining on water gations Report 77-6, 55 p. quality in a small watershed, Sullivan County, Shaver, R.H., Ault, C.H., Burger, A.M., Carr, D.D., Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Droste, J.B., Eggert, D.L., Gray, H.H., Harper, D., Report 81-543, 59 p. Hasenmueller, N.R., Hasenmueller, W.A., Horow- itz, A.S., Hutchison, H.C., Keith, B.D., Keller, S.J., Peters, N.E., and Bonelli, I.E., 1982, Chemical compo Patton, J.B., Rexroad, C.B., and Wier, C.E., 1986, sition of bulk precipitation in the north-central Compendium of Paleozoic rock-unit stratigraphy and northeastern United States, December 1980 in Indiana A revision: Bloomington, Ind., Indi through February 1981: U.S. Geological Survey ana Geological Survey Bulletin 59, 203 p. Circular 874, 63 p. Seller, D.R., 1993, Map showing the thickness and Renn, D.E., 1989, Streamflow and stream quality in character of Quaternary sediments in the glaciated the coal-mining region, Patoka River Basin, south United States east of the Rocky Mountains western Indiana, 1983-85: U.S. Geological Survey Northeastern states, the Great Lakes, and parts Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4150, of southern Ontario and the Atlantic offshore area: 68 p. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investiga tions Series Map I-1970-A, scale 1:1,000,000. Ripley, E.M., Shaffer, N.R., and Gilstrap, M.S., 1990, Distribution and geochemical characteristics Squillace, P.J., Caldwell, J.P., Schulmeyer, P.M., and Harvey, C.A., 1996, Movement of agricultural of metal enrichment in the New Albany Shale chemicals between surface water and ground (Devonian-Mississippian), Indiana: Economic water, Lower Cedar River Basin, Iowa: Geology, v. 85, p. 1790-1807. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2448, Ruddy, B.C., and Hitt, K.J., 1990, Summary of selected 59 p. characteristics of large reservoirs in the United Stewart, J.A., and Nell, G.E., 1991, Water resources States and Puerto Rico, 1988: U.S. Geological data Indiana, water year 1990: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-163, 295 p. Survey Water Data Report IN-90-1, 340 p. References Cited 65 References Cited Continued Wangsness, D.J., 1982, Reconnaissance of stream biota and physical and chemical water quality in areas of selected land use in the coal mining region, south Tanner, G.F., 1986, The Mt. Carmel Fault and western Indiana, 1979-80: U.S. Geological Survey associated features in south-central Indiana: Open-File Report 82-566, 43 p. Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University, M.S. Thesis, 66 p. Wayne, W.J., 1966, Ice and land A review of the Tertiary and Pleistocene history of Indiana, in Taylor, M.Z., 1989, Water quality falls on farmer's Lindsey, A.A., ed., Natural features of Indiana: shoulders: Farm Journal, April 1989, p. 19-21. Indianapolis, Indiana Academy of Science, Taylor, A.W., and Glotfelty, D.E., 1988, Evaporation p. 21-39. from soils and crops, in Grover, R., ed., Environ Wells, E.R. and Krothe, N.C., 1989, Seasonal fluctuation mental chemistry of herbicides, v. 1: Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, p. 89-129. in 815N of groundwater nitrate in a mantled karst aquifer due to macropore transport of fertilizer- Ulrich, H.P., 1966, Soils, in Lindsey, A.A., ed.. Natural derived nitrate: Journal of Hydrology, v. 112, features of Indiana: Indianapolis, Indiana Academy p. 191-201. of Science, p. 57-90. Wendland, W.M., Kunkel, K.E., Conner, Glen, Decker, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992, 1990 census of W.L., Hillaker, Harry, Naber-Knox, Pam, Nurn- population, General population characteristics, berger, F.V., Rogers, Jeffrey, Scheeringa, Kenneth, Indiana: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau Zandlo, James, 1992, Mean 1961-1990 tempera of the Census, variable pagination. ture and precipitation over the upper midwest: ___1994,1992 census of agriculture, v. 1 Geographic Champaign, 111., Midwestern Climate Center area series, part 14 Indiana State and county data: Research Report 92-01, 27 p. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, variable pagination. Whitaker, J.O., Schlueter, R.A., and Proffitt, M.A., 1973, Effects of heated discharge on fish and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Protect invertebrates of White River at Petersburg, Indiana: ing ground water Pesticides and agricultural Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University, Water practices: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Resources Research Center Report of Investiga Report EPA 440/6-88-001, 53 p. tions no. 6, 123 p. ___1996, Drinking water regulations and health Wilber, W.G., Renn, D.E., and Crawford, C.G., 1985, advisories: Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental Effects of land use and surficial geology on flow Protection Agency Office of Water, 20 p. and water quality of streams in the coal mining U.S. Geological Survey, 1990, Land use and land cover region of southwestern Indiana, October 1979 digital data from 1:250,000- and l:100,000-scale through September 1980: U.S. Geological Survey maps, Data users guide 4: Reston, Va., U.S. Geo Water-Resources Investigations Report, 85-4234, logical Survey, 25 p. 49 p. &U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 0 747-234 66 Environmental Setting and Natural Factors and Human Influences Affecting Water Quality, White River Basin, Indiana